Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GINNS AND GUTTERIDGE, LEICESTER (CREMATORIUM) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 15 March.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered upon Thursday 1 March.

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 1 March.

BARCLAYS BANK BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday 29 February at Seven o'clock.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 1 March.

ULLAPOOL HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Northern Ireland Office

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans for reorganising the Northern Ireland Office; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): No, Sir. The Northern Ireland Office is properly organised to administer the present constitutional

arrangements, but I am always willing to consider the size and structure of the office if widely acceptable proposals for devolution could be found.

Mr. Molyneaux: As the Northern Ireland Office is, in a sense, a microcosm of the national Government, is there not a strong case for having available continuity of advice from senior civil servants; advice which can be obtained only from people who have long experience in Northern Irleland affairs?

Mr. Prior: There is much in what the right hon. Gentleman says. Such advice is available through the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and through members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service who are members of the Northern Ireland Office, so that point can be met.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how the Northern Ireland Office acts in London when the Foreign Secretary of the Republic gets in touch with his ambassador here and wants roads not to be blocked in Northern Ireland, and one official of the Northern Ireland Office sees the ambassador and eventually gets the Army pulled out from blocking those roads?

Mr. Prior: That is not a correct account of what happened. What happens is that the ambassador endeavours to see a senior official at the Northern Ireland Office if a Minister is not available. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers a Minister was not available, but the views of the ambassador, representing his Government, were immediately relayed to a Minister, who then took the appropriate action.

Mr. Flannery: Does anyone seriously think that the reorganisation of the Northern Ireland Office will in any way solve the problem in Northern Ireland? Is it not a far more massive problem than that, and one with which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will not come to terms because he fears a solution in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior: In fairness, I do not believe that either the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) or the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) thought that this was a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. I believe that only by working through the Assembly can the people of Northern Ireland progress towards a solution of their problems, which will not be possible by making statements in the House.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has overwhelming support from the Conservative Benches and in the country for the difficult job that he does with such tact and patience? In the light of the previous question, will he take this opportunity to obtain from the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) a repudiation of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) and others who share them?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I leave it to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) to make her own remarks about that matter, but I must say that they were extraordinary, inept and unhelpful.

Miss Maynard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was misrepresentation and that in one newspaper at least there was an untrue statement? I repeat what I said


before. I am not in favour of violence, here or anywhere else. I have never been, and am not now, a supporter of the IRA or any other warring group in that unhappy country.

Mr. Prior: In that case, I hope that the hon. Lady will go one step further and say that she is not in favour of terrorism and that she does not believe that the IRA are freedom fighters.

Miss Maynard: I am not in favour of terrorism, and I am not in favour of it on either side.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Lady to say that.

Nuclear Energy

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his plans for the provision of nuclear energy in the Province for the foreseeable future.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): None, Sir.

Mr. Farr: Will my hon. Friend consider the matter again? As many countries in Europe which are not that much bigger than Northern Ireland produce a sizeable proportion of their energy supply by nuclear means, and as by the turn of the century countries such as Finland, Norway, and other Scandinavian countries will have a nuclear capacity of over 20 per cent., is not the Government's policy for the Province wrong?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend raised the matter in Committee, and I have reconsidered it because of the respect that I bear him. The total maximum load for Northern Ireland in 1982–83 was only about 1200 MW, and as nuclear power plants come in sizes from 500 MW upwards it is clearly out of the question at the moment to consider such a power station there.

Mr. McCusker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a cheaper way to allow Northern Ireland to benefit from nuclear-generated electricity would be to construct a North channel electricity inter-connector?

Mr. Butler: That is always an option, but an even cheaper way would be to exploit the lignite reserves which we have now established exist.

Mr. Concannon: Will the hon. Gentleman say a few words about the Kilroot power station and his intentions? Are we any further towards making that coal-fired?

Mr. Butler: I have a number of options before me as a result of consultants' investigations, and I have the Northern Ireland Electricity Services report as well. There are clear signs that conversion to solid fuel—probably coal—would be advantageous. I cannot say any more than that at present.

Aircraft Industry

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the future of the aircraft industry in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Butler: There are two companies in Northern Ireland which are involved in aircraft manufacture. They

are Short Brothers Ltd., which is publicly owned, and Lear Fan Ltd., in which the Government have a small shareholding. Shorts, which is the largest manufacturing employer in Northern Ireland, is continuing to develop its business in aerostructures, missiles and aircraft, and has good expectations of expanding its business profitably. The Lear Fan aircraft is at the leading edge of technology and its prospects depend on its attaining airworthiness certification.

Mr. Dubs: Do the Government intend to privatise Shorts?

Mr. Butler: We have no immediate intention so to do, but there is no reason why, given certain safeguards, Shorts should not be returned to the private sector.

Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government intend to privatise Shorts there would be no shortage of buyers? Will he take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work force and management of Short Brothers Ltd. which has led the field in increased productivity and has a large number of contracts with overseas manufacturers? In particular, will he pay tribute to the leadership of Sir Philip Foreman, who has done so well in increasing productivity?

Mr. Butler: I echo what my hon. Friend says about the performance of the management and work force. Before privatisation, Shorts must demonstrate a record of profitability. It has just broken into operating profit, and I hope that it will now go further.

Mr. Nicholson: Will the Minister join me in denouncing the serious act of wanton destruction in Armagh city in the early hours of Monday morning, which put the jobs of 200 people in my constituency at serious risk? Will he give an assurance that he will do everything in his power to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that this has anything to do with the aircraft industry.

Mr. Butler: It is possible that Bairnswear was producing knitwear for the employees of those firms. This is an important matter and I join the hon. Gentleman in denouncing what occurred. Those who aspire to serve the interests of Ireland do total damage to it by destroying jobs for people in Armagh and creating a worse image of the Province.

Mr. Robert Atkins: As one who travels on a Shorts 330 some weekends to my constituency — [HON. MEMBERS: "A private one?"] Yes, a private airline—may I add my tribute to the work done by Shorts? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Defence Department of the United States is giving the Sherpa a fair crack of the whip in the competition for that aeroplane, which the United States Government require for their armed forces?

Mr. Butler: I hope that the airline which my hon. Friend flies will soon be buying 360s. The answer to his question is yes, we believe that the case has been made thoroughly and it is being reviewed now both by the United States air force and by the United States Administration. Naturally we hope it will succeed, because it will mean an expansion of Shorts business as well as 500 or 600 new, much-needed jobs.

Mr. Archer: Is the hon. Gentlemn aware that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) will be viewed within the context of the whole


strategy of the Government of divesting the public in the next four years of any asset which shows itself to be profitable, irrespective of the interests of the work force, the local community or the general economy? If the voice is the voice of the hon. Gentleman, is the hand not the hand of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Butler: Having led in this House on the British Aerospace Bill, as it was then, I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is my hand and my policy, which I share with my right hon. Friend. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gets the story completely wrong. If and when privatisation were to come about, it would be to the advantage of the work force. I would hope, for instance, that they would be able to participate in the shareholding in the company, which they cannot do at the moment. Of course, it would be necessary, among other things, to have safeguards to ensure that the business remained in Northern Ireland.

Assembly Recommendations

Mr. Peter Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many recommendations of the Northern Ireland Assembly he has accepted fully or in part; and whether they have involved or will involve changes in statutory rules, Orders in Council or Executive action.

Mr. Prior: Up to 31 January 1984 the Government had accepted, in full or in part, 138 recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Assembly arising out of the work of its departmental Committees. Acceptance of these recommendations has resulted, or will result, in changes to draft Orders in Council or statutory rules, or Executive action, including, in some cases, further discussion with the Assembly.

Mr. Robinson: I am grateful for that information. Does the Secretary of State believe that that is a worthwhile role for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly? Will he in this House welcome the return to the Northern Ireland Assembly of four Members who had for some time been boycotting it? Does he believe that their return — or, indeed, the absence of the remainder of their colleagues—affects the future of that Assembly?

Mr. Prior: I warmly welcome the work that the Assembly has done, which has been valuable, and if we could find any other way of making the work of the Assembly, even in phase 1, more effective than it is at present by the greater participation of Ministers, and so on, we should be only to happy to do so. I shall, of course, not be satisfied until everybody elected to the Assembly is attending it. I am afraid that that may still be some way off, but in the meanwhile we must go on with the Assembly as it is, although it cannot continue indefinitely unless people take part.

Mr. William Ross: We are grateful to the Secretary of State for the figures that he has given. Does he understand that those figures will be read with great interest in Northern Ireland? Will he increase that interest in Northern Ireland by detailing in the Official Report the number of recommendations which have been put to him which he has not accepted and has decided not to implement?

Mr. Prior: I believe that 78 recommendations have not been accepted. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is

now taking an interest in the Assembly. The Government believe — this is generally recognised — that it is far easier to bring down institutions than it is to create them. Nothing has been put forward for the future of Northern Ireland which in any way comes near to the success of the Assembly, even as it is operating now.

Mr. Porter: I am glad to hear that the Assembly has done some useful work. Is not now the time to have another look at the possibility of administrative devolution, which could perhaps add to the Assembly's work?

Mr. Prior: As I have said on many occasions, we are prepared to look at anything put forward, but it must match the criteria that are acceptable to both sides of the community. The Assembly is the right place for those aspects to be discussed. I hope that everyone will take part in discussions in the Assembly on how it can progress. The House could then look at the proposals put forward.

Mr. John David Taylor: Is the Secretary of State aware that most people in Northern Ireland wish to see the Assembly not only retained but given real powers of devolution?

Mr. Prior: I recognise that, and I am the first to want to see that happen. Having been on the receiving end of representations from hon. Members for a number of years, I long for Northern Ireland to have more say in its affairs. I equally recognise that that can happen only when the people of Northern Ireland are prepared to accept those powers in a spirit of co-operation.

Mr. Canavan: Are the absentee Members of that toy town Assembly still entitled to draw their wages and expenses? How much is that stupid exercise costing the taxpayer?

Mr. Prior: I do not regard the Assembly as a stupid exercise. I hope that, from now on, the hon. Gentleman will give a little credit where it is due to the people who are playing a full part in the Assembly. I cannot give him the figures of those who have drawn their salaries but are not attending the Assembly. I recognise that many of them are doing constituency work and carrying out constituency functions. If the hon. Gentleman puts down a question on that subject, I shall answer him.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it ill-becomes the hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) to say in the House that the Assembly should be supported and that the Northern Ireland people want: to support it, when he occupies an office in that Assembly as the Vice-Chairman of a Committee, does not attend, but continues to draw a salary for an office which he does not even attempt to fulfil?

Mr. Prior: I am trying to get the hon. Gentleman back into the Assembly, not to keep him out.

Roads (Gritting and Salting)

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will accede to the request of the Newry and Mourne district council that district councils be given responsibility for gritting and salting of roads in conditions of frost and snow.

The Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): No such request has been received.

Mr. Powell: Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that it would be entirely practical and efficient for such a service to be administered by those who live in the locality, who know where the needs most urgently arise and are in the best position to be aware of public anxiety and, if necessary, to allay it?

Mr. Patten: There are some practical difficulties in the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. I am not aware of any general desire among district councils to have that function transferred to them. If the organisation representative of district councils comes forward with that proposal, we shall give it the serious attention which it will doubtless deserve.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the Under-Secretary of State assure the House that if such powers were given to local district councils in Northern Ireland appropriate finance would be made available to them, so that there would not be another financial fiasco, such as we had with the dogs order, with the burden being put on district rates and the money coming from local people's pockets?

Mr. Patten: Any such change would, of course, have financial implications, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Magilligan Prison

Mr. William Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further steps he has taken and what further advice he has given to staff of the prison service to prevent firearms, ammunition and explosives being smuggled into Her Majesty's prison, Magilligan.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The governor of Her Majesty's prison Magilligan has, under the direction of the Northern Ireland Office, carried out a thorough review of security and procedures at all levels within the prison. Special attention has been paid to search methods and the general supervision of inmates by staff, and revised arrangements have been introduced for controlling and supervising visitors.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that he told me on 10 November 1983 that all that was humanly possible was being done to ensure that no illicit material was getting into the prison? Shortly thereafter a firearm was found, and since then there has been an explosion, which was clearly designed to kill. Against that background, why should the people in the area believe that the present measures are any more successful than those that have been employed in the past? What assurance can the Minister give the local people? Is he making available to the prison officers at Magilligan prison copies of the Hennessy report and, possibly, the report of the debate in the House on that report?

Mr. Scott: I said I would ensure that all that was humanly possible would be done at Magilligan prison. I have always made it clear that no guarantee can be given for any prison that there will be no smuggling of contraband articles. Smuggling takes place in prisons in Britain and in Northern Ireland, but all that is humanly possible will be done.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Would it not be a good idea for a number of the prison officers to have a restricted length

of service at Magilligan prison — for example, three months' service, followed by three months off? In that way, they could continue to be alert all the time.

Mr. Scott: With the greatest possible respect, I think that prison officers should spend sufficient time in any prison, but not an excessive time, to be able to gain experience of the inmates and the conditions within the prison.

Mr. Maginnis: Has the regimes division of the Northern Ireland prison department advised the Minister to accord to Loyalist prisoners who have recently stopped their protest the same return of remission as he accorded to Republican prisoners who came off hunger strikes?

Mr. Scott: I was pleased to see the statement on behalf of Loyalist prisoners that they have ceased their protest. If that turns out to be the position, we shall for the first time since 1976 be without a protest in Northern Ireland's prisons. We shall judge the behaviour of the prisoners concerned. If they turn out to be fully conforming prisoners, the return of remission will be considered.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Minister not in a position to confirm that the protest has ended?

Mr. Scott: I have seen statements, but whether prisoners are on protest is judged by behaviour rather than statements.

Rev. Martin Smyth: What standards of judgment were excercised for conforming Republican prisoners?

Mr. Scott: Conforming prisoners are those who are willing to take directions from the governor on accommodation and work.

Mr. Soley: Will the Minister explain why body-scanning techniques cannot be introduced in the Northern Ireland prison system, including Magillan prison, to prevent the unnecessary use of strip-searching techniques, which are highly undesirable? Is there any truth in the suggestion that scanning techniques cannot be introduced because far more prison staff would be required to implement them? If that is true, does the Minister accept that that is an entirely unacceptable reason?

Mr. Scott: That is untrue. Strip searching is used in prisons throughout the United Kingdom and is thought to be necessary in all our prisons. There is continuous review of the technical facilities, which might one day obviate the necessity for strip searching, which must be unpleasant for prisoners and prison officers alike.

Security

Rev. Ian Paisley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security of the border.

Mr. Prior: Since I last answered questions on 26 January, two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, one soldier and six civilians have died as a result of incidents connected with the security situation in Northern Ireland. As always, the police and Army commanders continue to pay particular regard to the security of the border areas and I am convinced that the positive and


flexible tactics that they employ in this region are the best way to thwart terrorist crime. In the pursuit of border security, I continue to attach importance to the closest co-operation with the security authorities in the Republic.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that my right-thinking constituents in Dunloy would like me to pay tribute to a gallant sergeant of the British Army who was killed while giving protection to law-abiding citizens of the Dunloy area? We hope that his colleague will speedily recover from the injuries that he received. Will the right hon. Gentleman also take it from me that my constituents are delighted that the right men were brought under the fire power of the British Army, especially when one thinks of the list of murders and attacks that were carried out by those who used the weapons that were recovered? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the security forces the thanks of my constituents for the action that they took?

Mr. Prior: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. I hope that everyone in Northern Ireland and in the House will pay tribute, as the hon. Gentleman has done, to the work of the security forces, and recognise the difficulties that all those connected with the security forces have to contend with in Northern Ireland. Although we do not always see eye to eye about the best methods of securing security, we are all doing our best to overcome the very serious problem.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend try to overcome the objections in the South to direct links between the armies on the two sides of the border? Secondly, has not the time come to set up a security commission involving the authorities on both sides to review all aspects of border security? After many years, the situation remains very unsatisfactory.

Mr. Prior: I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation remains very unsatisfactory, and I am interested that he should make that suggestion about greater cooperation. I am convinced that if we are to overcome the problems of terrorism we must consider them in the context of the island of Ireland as a whole.

Mr. Beggs: In view of the murderous attack by the IRA in Dunloy, will the Secretary of State assure us that additional personnel will be drafted into north Antrim to ensure that we do not see the developments there that have taken place in County Armagh?

Mr. Prior: Those are matters for the security forces to assess for themselves. I do not believe that additional personnel are necessarily required, but if the GOC or the Chief Constable believe that it is necessary, numbers will be increased.

Mr. Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that a bomb was exploded under a car belonging to a prison officer in my constituency in the early hours of this morning. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this follows two other occasions when cars belonging to two prison officers were destroyed by fire two weeks ago? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Northern Ireland Office discusses the protection of prison officers with the Prison Officers' Association?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. We have had a number of incidents recently in which the cars or homes of prison officers have been attacked in one way or another. That

demonstrates some of the difficulties under which the prison service operates in Northern Ireland. We are doing all that we can to prevent such incidents. The attacks are thought to have been by Loyalists, not by Provisionals. They show the difficulty of trying to get on top of the problem.

Mr. Archer: I recognise the real problems confronting those responsible for law enforcement, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is deep and widespread disquiet in both communities that, in the course of some recent supergrass trials, innocent people have been at risk as well as the guilty? That makes difficulties for those within the communities who urge that redress for grievances should be sought by lawful and constitutional means.
When George Baker's report be available, and when will the House have an opportunity to debate these matters?

Mr. Prior: I am sorry to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that. There is a right of appeal. The judges have acted with enormous care in assessing the cases that have come before them. I do not think that anything should be said that will in any way make it more difficult to convict terrorists. I hope that the House will remain firm in supporting the necessity of using supergrasses in Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the country. where there is reasonable cause for doing so. The Baker report should be available within four or five weeks at the most.

Pig Industry

Mr. Nicholson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he proposes to implement to alleviate the problems facing the Northern Ireland pig industry.

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from pig producers regarding the cost of feed in the Province and the effect this is having on production.

Mr. Butler: The problems of the pig production sector were raised with my noble Friend the Earl of Mansfield by officials of the Ulster Farmers Union on 10 February. In this financial year, as in each of the two previous financial years, the Government allocated just over £1 million to the industry under the special temporary assistance for intensive livestock industries arrangements. It is the Government's intention to continue payment of this aid. Northern Ireland firms are also making use of the European Community scheme of aids to private storage of pigmeat, which was introduced on 16 January 1984.

Mr. Nicholson: I welcome the Minister's reply. Does he accept that after the serious decline in the number of pigs—there are now about half as many as there were 10 years ago—and as the industry plays an important role in Northern Ireland in providing employment on farms and in ancillary industries, he should give serious thought to advancing proposals to help alleviate the problem Northern Ireland faces as a peripheral area, with the result that high import costs mean that pig production is loss-making?

Mr. Butler: There is no doubt that the pig producing and processing industries are important to the Province. There has been a loss of jobs in that sector. The industry


has been relatively stable for eight or nine years, but present circumstances are intensely grave. I am glad that there has recently been an improvement in prices, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, grain prices have also increased. The problem derives from over-supply. Until that is sorted out, I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope for pig farmers.

Mr. McQuarrie: My hon. Friend will be aware that the loss to the Province of 50,000 tonnes of German intervention breadmeat last year — which amount was quickly taken up by the producers in 1983—has caused the industry serious problems, because the increase in pig prices has increased the price of feed by £50 to £60 a tonne since August 1983. As the pig industry is vital to the Province for home consumption and export, will my hon. Friend take positive action to secure cheaper feed prices for the pig industry, as any further decline in production in that industry will have grave consequences for the future of the economy and employment in the Province?

Mr. Butler: The intervention grain benefited the industry and the intensive sector last year. I know that my noble Friend is doing all that he can to get a repeat of that if it is possible.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that the pig producers of Northern Ireland are at a disadvantage because of a slush fund that was established by the Government of the Republic to help produce to be sent to third countries? Will he consider setting up such a fund to assist the Pig Marketing Board in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Butler: I can see no hope of doing more than we are doing to help this sector.

Lear Fan Project

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Lear Fan project.

Mr. Butler: Lear Fan remains a high-risk project, but it also offers the potential for high rewards in terms of the development of a new technology and the generation of jobs in Northern Ireland. At the present time management effort is being concentrated on obtaining airworthiness certification.

Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend accept that as well as being high-risk and having a high profit potential, the Lear Fan project is also high technology in that it breaks completely new ground in its all-composite construction and use of a single gearbox with two turbo-prop engines? That is bound to make certification a lengthy and costly business. What is my hon. Friend's view of the other commercial prospects for wider use of that high technology?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is a high technology aircraft. As a result, certification is taking longer than we had expected. The use of composite materials is not a new concept. I am glad to say that Shorts has been exploiting such technology for some time in making aerostructure parts. The company will be examining whether the materials have other uses.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Minister assure us that the delay in getting airworthiness authorisation and certification is not due to delaying tactics, to allow American-based companies to come in first?

Mr. Butler: I can deny that absolutely. I am fully persuaded that the management is doing all that it can to achieve certification. As I have said, such a project involving new technology is inevitably delayed by slippage in the programme.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that many right hon. and hon. Members are interested in the project because of the high technology involved in the aircraft design? Will the Department make it possible for interested Members to contact the project managers direct?

Mr. Butler: We are always pleased for right hon. and hon. Members to visit Northern Ireland. The project is important, involving substantial sums of public money. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members would be welcome. Nevertheless, the managers have a job to do and I should not want them to be too distracted from it.

Mr. Soley: Will the Minister take this opportunity to give a clear assurance that the Government are fully satisfied that they are getting all the information that they need, especially of a technical and financial nature, to enable them to judge the future prospects of the company as well as the aircraft?

Mr. Butler: Yes. The financial and technical monitoring exercises that have been carried out are satisfactory. We are getting all the information that we need.

Constitution (Government Policy)

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the future of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is considering any new constitutional proposals for the future of Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: The Government remain of the view that if the people of Northern Ireland are to have a greater say in their own affairs, participation and discussion in the Assembly is the best way forward. It is in the interest of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to make the most of the opportunity that the Assembly offers.

Mr. Parry: Does the Secretary of State agree that there should be a positive gesture to the minority parties in Northern Ireland to enable them to take part in the democratic processes of the Province?

Mr. Prior: Such positive gestures must come from the people of Northern Ireland themselves. Democracy can come about only through the Assembly. That is why the Assembly provides a framework in which all the parties of Northern Ireland, both majority and minority, can try to find accommodation.

Mr. Maclennan: In answer to an earlier question on the future of the Assembly the Secretary of State said that it could not continue indefinitely without the support of the two major constitutional parties in the North. How long can it continue?

Mr. Prior: Not very long unless the constitutional parties take part. That is why I hope they will do so.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister realise that unless some political reorganisation takes place the Assembly is clearly a failure, because the minority community regards itself as oppressed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) cannot find a seat on the Front Bench below the Gangway he should go elsewhere.

Mr. Flannery: I do not know what hon. Members are laughing at. This is a serious subject.
The minority community will not enter the Assembly because they regard it as an opponent and a place where majority Unionist policy is carried on. The minority do not regard any kind of democracy as useful. Does the Secretary of State realise that 100 years from now our successors will still be debating security unless some kind of political reorganisation takes place in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman could help quite a bit—

Mr. Flannery: The Minister will have to shout. I cannot hear him.

Mr. Prior: —if he can convince the SDLP that the Northern Ireland Act 1982 provides the conditions that it needs to take part in the Assembly. As he well knows, there will be no progress towards devolved Government without the consent of the majority of people in Northern Ireland.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in debates at the University of Cork and at University College Dublin, I successfully defeated a motion in favour of a united Ireland? Does he agree that thinking people in the Republic are coming rapidly to the view that the best basis for good relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic is recognition of the border and recognition of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I shall not take points of order until afterwards.

Mr. Flannery: It is on this issue. [Interruption].

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Member to sit down. I will take points of order immediately after Prime Minister's Question Time.

Mr. Flannery: It is about what has just occurred.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that I would take the point of order afterwards.

Mr. Flannery: It will be lost by that time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down. We have now reached Prime Minister's Question Time.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that I would take points of order afterwards.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: My supplementary question has not been answered.

Mr. Speaker: Has the answer not been given?

Mr. Flannery: It is disgraceful. We were not heard because of Tory Members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Flannery: My question was not heard. It is your duty to defend me.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must calm down. He has asked his question. I will take his point of order afterwards.

Mr. Flannery: You should defend Back Benchers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had better not say that again.

Mr. Prior: I hope that more and more people will come to realise the truth of what my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Stan Thorne: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Council of Civil Service Unions about GCHQ.

Mr. Thorne: Has the Prime Minister yet had time to consider the report of Coopers and Lybrand, which reveals that the abolition of the metropolitan councils will produce no net saving but a possible increase in cost of £60 million per year? Will she comment on that?

The Prime Minister: I have seen the outline of the report. Coopers and Lybrand have identified scope for significant savings. The extent to which those savings are realised will depend on how vigorously they are pursued by the boroughs and districts. It is to be hoped that they will actually consider the interests of the ratepayers.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend have time in the course of her busy day to consider the plight of the British lorry drivers in France, and will she make a direct personal intervention with President Mitterrand in her best Palmerstonian manner?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was in Paris this morning and made vigorous representations to the French Government about the plight of our lorry drivers. I should like to report to my hon. Friend that our consular staff in the area worst affected have been increased by people going down there from Paris. Money is being loaned to lorry drivers so that they can purchase the things that they need. Most of them wish to stay with their lorries. We have had requests for repatriation from one group and are urgently considering what can be done about then[. In general, however, the drivers wish to stay with their lorries and our consular staff are doing everything possible to see that they are properly looked after.

Chesterfield

Mr. Heddle: asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Chesterfield.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend recall the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition on Monday in Chesterfield, in which he called for the immediate abandonment of Britain's nuclear defences? [Interruption.] Does she also recall that on the same day one of Mr. Benn's even closer parliamentary friends said that the IRA were not terrorists? Does she agree that the moderate majority in Chesterfield would rather be governed by a party dedicated to peace through strength, and to outlawing Irish terrorism, than by the sweet nature of Russia?

The Prime Minister: I saw the speech to which my hon. Friend referred. I thought that the Leader of the Opposition's comments were thoroughly irresponsible and even further to the Left than the Labour manifesto in the general election. The Government's policy on defence is the only sure and effective defence for Britain and the only guarantee of peace with freedom and justice.

Mr. John David Taylor: Will the Prime Minister assure the people of Chesterfield that the people of Northern Ireland consider those responsible for the murder of a British Army sergeant two days ago to be terrorists and not freedom fighters?

The Prime Minister: I warmly endorse what the hon. Gentleman said and thank him for it.

Engagements

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the Prime Minister recall that she and her party won a handsome majority at the general election based on record unemployment? [Interruption.] Is she aware that she is reported to believe that unemployment is no longer an election issue and, therefore, that she has no incentive to reflate the economy before the next general election? Is she further aware that hon. Members now know from her statements and those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government intend no intervention, especially in manufacturing? Is she prepared to allow her cynicism to condemn millions of British people to a future of no work and no hope?

The Prime Minister: The British electorate had a better appreciation of the causes of unemployment than the hon. Gentleman. One of the reasons for their vote was that they believed that the Conservative party was the right party to bring back more jobs and greater prosperity to all British people. The hon. Gentleman should note that real personal disposable income in Britain is now higher than it was at any time under a Labour Government.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister will meet the Civil Service unions about the vexed matter of GCHQ today. Is she aware that the whole House wants an amicable, just

and enduring solution to those problems, and accepts that it is possible to achieve an outcome that maintains civil rights and guarantees seacurity at GCHQ, because the union members at GCHQ and elsewhere are firmly and irrevocably pledged to both civil liberties and to security?

The Prime Minister: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. I must tell him that the Government's decision, announced on 25 January, remains the only effective guarantee of our objectives, which I believe are widely shared.

Mr. Kinnock: But the Prime Minister is seeing those unions today. If she is stubborn over that view, what is the point of a further meeting? Should she not be entirely preoccupied with the values of democracy and with the interests of national security, clearing her mind of any desires to defend what was initially an ill-advised and thoroughly impetuous decision which cannot enhance security and will not enhance democracy?

The Prime Minister: It was well-advised and well considered. It followed well-established lines of treating agencies whose principal function is security and intelligence as being different from others. I believe that it was the right decision. The majority of people in GCHQ have accepted it, and the majority increases day by day.

Mr. Kinnock: None of that explains either the long delay or the utterly incompetent way in which the Government are trying to deal with it. Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister is not dealing with issues of democracy, liberty, efficiency or security, but with issues of personal vanity?

The Prime Minister: I note how lightly the right hon. Gentleman chooses to treat issues of national security.

Sir Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that there is great uncertainty in British agriculture, especially because of the Community, but also because of the so-called inquiry into the privileges of British agriculture? Will she explain the position and express her confidence in an industry which has served Britain well, both consumer and producer?

The Prime Minister: The Government are determined to reduce the surpluses that are produced under the common agricultural policy. The reason for that is well understood by all farmers in the Community, although we all recognise that it will cause painful adjustments. However, people realise that it must come about. The Government also believe that people realise the need for support for British agriculture—support that is offered by every Western industrialised country to its agricultural services. They recognise the need for that support and they recognise, as do the Government, the need for a healthy agriculture industry.
When all that has been said, it is natural that every Government should examine the amount of public support given to any industry, and keep that carefully monitored and scrutinised in the ordinary way of public expenditure. I should make it clear, because there have been reports to the contrary, that, as was said in the White Paper, we do not propose to reopen the question of rating agricultural land and buildings.

Mr. Beith: Does the Prime Minister recognise that yesterday's events at Ellington colliery in my constituency caused deep concern to many of my constituents,


including large numbers of miners, who share the deep sense of frustration of miners in other parts of the Nurthumberland coalfield about pit closures, but who do not consider violence or disorder to be any answer? Does she especially deplore the comments of the area union president, who, unlike the local lodge officials, had no regrets about the incident, when what happened was that a badly organised protest was allowed by the area to get out of hand?

The Prime Minister: I join the hon. Gentleman in totally condemning the incident in which Mr. MacGregor was knocked to the ground yesterday. It was a disgraceful incident, which most miners will condemn. I share the hon. Gentleman's revulsion that it was not universally condemned, and I am sad that the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) chose not to condemn it in his selection of questions today.

Mr. Onslow: When my right hon. Friend meets the GCHQ unions this afternoon will she bear in mind that most hon. Members, and most people in the country, take the view that it is the Government's responsibility to see that the requirements of national security are satisfied, not those of the trade unions, and not those of the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is a very heavy responsibility, and the way in which we have chosen to discharge it, I am convinced, is the right one.

Mr. Ryman: With respect to the Prime Minister's answer to a supplementary question a few minutes ago about the incident in Northumberland yesterday, could the Prime Minister reconsider her complacent attitude towards jobs, and appreciate that, as a result of the ferocious campaign by the National Coal Board, dozens of pits in the north-east are threatened with redundancies and closure, and her Secretary of State for Energy and the chairman of the National Coal Board have flatly refused to listen to representations on behalf of the men in that industry?

The Prime Minister: This Government's record on putting investment into the coal industry is outstanding. It exceeds the "Plan for Coal". The "Plan for Coal" had three parts—good investment in good pits, raising productivity and closing old pits. [Interruption.] The Government have more than honoured the promise to put investment into the coal industry, and Mr. MacGregor has been particularly active in securing investment for Asfordby. That demonstrates this Government's and Mr. MacGregor's faith in the future of the coal industry.

Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is becoming increasingly difficult to ask a proper question in the House—as has been evidenced by the last two seconds or so — because the sheer hooliganism and noise — [Interruption.] — as again evidenced, is organised deliberately to prevent the Labour side of the House from putting questions. On this occasion, when I sought to ask a question, the situation, which I had not noticed at the time, was not connected with the question, but with the intervention of SDP members on the Front Bench below the Gangway who were forcing long-experienced Members out of their places, when there was plenty of room for them to join the Liberal party, to which they belong.

Mr. Speaker: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about his inability to hear the answer to a question. I found it difficult, too. I think that the problem arose from the incident which the hon. Gentleman pointed out, but I must say to the House that there is no prescriptive right to a seat in the House unless the hon. Member concerned is present for Prayers. I think that was really the cause of the trouble today.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the course of one of her replies towards the end of Question Time the Prime Minister gave the impression that she would like to have told me what question to raise during the questions that I was putting to her. That would be an extraordinary step. But, may I say, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the reason why it was inappropriate to raise the matter that the Prime Minister suggested is that, within minutes of knowing of the incident in Northumberland yesterday, I spoke to Mr. MacGregor's office to inquire about his welfare, because I shared the concern of everybody in those circumstances. I spoke to Mr. MacGregor in a personal conversation this morning. I have checked details of the incident with the Northumberland police and I conclude that, deeply regrettable though the incident was, both the Home Secretary and now the Prime Minister are simply trying to make mischief out of a regrettable incident. It is not worthy of such use by officers and senior members of the Cabinet.

Dr. Owen: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have an extension of Question Time. A point of order must be one upon which I can rule.

Dr. Owen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is an intolerable abuse of points of order that the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr. Skinner: Sit down. This is boring.

Dr. Owen: You are going to get it. —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I be allowed to hear the point of order?

Dr. Owen: Is it in order that the Leader of the Opposition should be allowed to make a statement on an incident about which the Leader of the House refused to make a statement yesterday and on which the Minister of State later wrote a letter to me which did not contain any of the words in the statement which the Home Secretary made at 11.30 pm and which the Prime Minister made at Question Time? We have had no opportunity to raise the issue. — [Interruption.] Such abuse of the House has been tolerated for the last eight months. It is getting to the stage where we will not accept this behaviour. [Interruption.] I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to respect the views not just of minorities, but of a substantial body of opinion in the country. I must ask—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman come to his point of order? These are questions on which I cannot rule. They are not matters for me. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Dr. Owen: You, Mr. Speaker, allowed the Leader of the Opposition to make his statement. I am asking you whether you should have allowed that statement or whether you should have interrupted it as you would have done if any other right hon. or hon. Member had made


such a statement—[Interruption.] The House has rights and we have rights and they are being abused day after day.

Mr. Speaker: Order. — [Interruption.] A broadly similar point was made by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday. Had I anticipated what the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) was going to say, perhaps I should not have allowed it. We should not have an extension of Question Time through points of order.

Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, one of your functions is to preserve and protect the veracity of the business and statements in the House. [Interruption.] Today and in previous statements the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have repeatedly stated that the only areas of suppression of trade union activity—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now perpetrating what I said was not in order. I am not responsible for statements made from the Front Bench or for the veracity of any answers.

Early-Day Motions

Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mine is a point of order, Mr. Speaker, not the outpourings of a spoilt child from Devonport. I am sorry to have to raise a point of order, because it is seldom that I have ever done so, but I have been trying to table an early-day motion—this is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker —drawing attention to the extent of unemployment on Merseyside. In it, I wanted to list the number of redundancies and factory closures that have taken place over the past two years. I have been refused leave to table the motion because, I am told, it is too long. It is not my fault that it is too long. I have not been responsible for the length of the list of closures and redundancies. I call upon you, Mr. Speaker, to protect the rights of Back Benchers and allow me to illustrate the unemployment levels and the number of redundancies and closures on Merseyside by being able to table my early-day motion.

Mr. Speaker: I can answer that point simply. The hon. Gentleman sought to table a long motion, which was brought to me. I disallowed it because it was over 700 words long and contained a long extract from a newspaper article. In a previous ruling, as I am sure the hon. Member will know, because he studies Hansard, I ruled that private Members' motions on Fridays should not exceed an average of 250 words. Therefore I ruled that his long motion, which contained that long extract, was not in order, and I have already been in touch with the hon. Member about it.

Mr. Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing further to say. I have told the hon. Gentleman why I disallowed the motion.

GCHQ (Parliamentary Lobby)

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that many people are protesting about the Government's action at GCHQ. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that one of my constituents who is employed by the Customs and Excise in Liverpool has been prevented from taking part in the lobby as a result of the decision by a Minister in the Treasury to cancel the leave that he required for that purpose. Are you able to protect the rights of our people who wish to lobby their representatives in Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: I ruled on this the other day. I told the hon. Gentleman that access to the Central Lobby today would be the same as on any other day. I am not responsible for whether leave has been cancelled. That is not a matter for me.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on changes in conditions of service in Government Communications Headquarters on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The first report from the Select Committee on Employment, in Session 1983–84, House of Commons Paper No. 238, will be relevant.
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY—There will be a debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 29 FEBRUARY — Consideration of a timetable motion on the Rates Bill.
Motions on European Community Documents R/113/77 and R1134/78 on contracts negotiated away from business premises, and on 11003/83 on food aid.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 1 MARCH—Motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 2 MARCH—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY 5 MARCH—Opposition Day (11th Allotted Day): Subject for debate to be announced.

[European Community debates on 29 February.

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee;

Doorstep Selling
HC 159-xl (1979–80) para. 1
HC 78-viii (1983–84) para. 3

Food Aid
HC 78-xi (1983–84) para. 8]

Mr. Kinnock: Although the Select Committee's report on GCHQ is relevant to the debate on Monday, we shall nevertheless, pursuant to the right hon. Gentleman's previous undertakings, take up the question of the Government's prohibition of a willing witness to give evidence to that Select Committee? We shall take up the matter in a separate debate on a future occasion.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his announcement about the debate on Welsh affairs that is to take place on Tuesday. However, in view of the numerous problems in the English regions, will he reconstitute the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs — which has been in disuse for several years—under Standing Order No. 77?
On the guillotine motion to be debated next Wednesday, I accept that from time to time all Governments have occasion to resort to this procedure, but will the right hon. Gentleman accept that on this occasion it is particularly objectionable —indeed, outrageous—because the Government refused to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, as requested from several quarters, and because the Committee stage of the Bill has been running for only four weeks—a short time for such substantial and important legislation? Moreover, the Government have rejected the offer that was made by the Opposition for arrangements through the usual channels.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the timetable next week will be more than usually generous in the time that it allows?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he can give time to debate the ninth report of the Public Accounts Committee, which involved the activity—or inactivity—of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), when he was the Minister with responsibility for Scottish education? The report concerns the loss of £5 million to the taxpayer as a result of the grossly underpriced sale of Hamilton college of further education. The matter is naturally one that deserves the thorough and speedy attention of the House. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that an opportunity will be quickly afforded to debate it?

Mr. Biffen: I note, of course, the point that the Leader of the Opposition makes about Monday's debate and the question of witnesses appearing before a Select Committee. Secondly, I note his request that we should consider the possibility of having a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs under the general requirements of Standing Order No. 77. The House has had experience of that, and doubtless it will wish to reconsider the matter before making a judgment. Perhaps we can consider the matter further through the usual channels.
I note all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, with the conviction and oratory that I expect, about the guillotine motion. Although I am easily reduced to contrition, I have managed to resist the temptation on this occasion. There are sound arguments to be deployed, and doubtless they will be deployed next Wednesday, on the timetable motion. I am ambivalent only in one respect. I realise that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) is poised to snatch the crown from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) as an expert in these matters, and I fear that the premature closing perhaps of the debate will defer that happening until some future occasion.
In answer to what the right hon. Gentleman said about debating reports of the Public Accounts Committee, may I point out that a number of reports are outstanding. I should like to consider the matter to see how best we can proceed. Of course, I take account of the point the right hon. Gentleman made about the desirability of having the subject of the Hamilton college of further education included in the reports that will be debated.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Can my right hon. Friend say when we can expect to debate this year's public expenditure White Paper? Will it be before the Budget?

Mr. Biffen: Yes, it will.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to his right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary the urgency of a debate in this House on the situation in the Gulf so that we may not find ourselves committed to warlike operations with the House not having had an opportunity to consider the matter in advance?

Mr. Biffen: I recognise the force of what the right hon. Gentleman says and I shall make those representations.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Minister of State, Department of


Transport, announced recently the laying of an order to increase speed limits for lorries and coaches that would come into force in two months? Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are concerned about that? As I have already advised the Patronage Secretary that I cannot support it and that I hope effectively to plot against it, will my right hon. Friend say when we are likely to debate it?

Mr. Biffen: The Patronage Secretary is here and will have noted everything that my hon. Friend has said. I, too, shall take it into account.

Mr. John Cartwright: If the Government are convinced of the correctness of their case on GCHQ, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why Monday's debate will be on the Adjournment and not on a positive Government motion? Is that yet another example of a cosy arrangement between the usual channels to prevent the House from voting on the major principles involved?

Mr. Biffen: It certainly is not. Any hon. Member with a shred of a sense of history will realise that the motion for the Adjournment has been the occasion of some of the most important debates and decisions of the House.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some Conservative Members would welcome a Government motion that would enable us to give an affirmative vote in the House to the good sense of the Prime Minister's policies on GCHQ?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of what my hon. Friend says, but I should like to feel that he could none the less confer that support within the terms of the motion that has been selected.

Mrs. Renée Short: When will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity to debate the Government's policy on science and technology? It has been debated in the other place, it affects every Government Department and it is of enormous importance. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that time will be found for a debate as soon as possible?

Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge at once the importance of the hon. Lady's point, but no time can be found next week, and none will be available before the debate on the Budget. However, I shall ever bear in mind the hon. Lady's point.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Further to the earlier request for a debate on the deteriorating situation in the Gulf, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some hon. Members are anxious, not for the reasons expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but because of allegations in the press that British companies, and perhaps the Government, may be resupplying the Iranian armed forces with spare parts and military equipment? Is he aware that the matter needs to be debated as soon as possible?

Mr. Biffen: I note that there is a variety of factors, some of which coincide and some of which conflict with the proposition of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but there is the common denominator that it is an important subject; and we hope that there will be a foreign affairs debate reasonably soon.

Mr. George Robertson: I welcome the studied comments of the Leader of the House on the Public

Accounts Committee's report on Hamilton college of education. May I emphasise the urgent need for a statement and a debate on that subject? The report clearly criticises the competence of a Minister who is now in charge of a major area of public and business finance. Therefore, as that Minister is using press briefings and television to answer some, but not the major, criticisms in that report, surely it should be discussed in the House.

Mr. Biffen: The report of the Public Accounts Committee is received, there is then a period before which Government comment is made, and thereafter a debate takes place. I am conscious of the general desire of the House that this should proceed as expeditiously as possible, against the background that a number of other reports will be outstanding. I must conclude, however, by saying that I repudiate entirely the remarks made against my hon. Friend.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has never been a better time to consider the reform of our parliamentay procedures so that we achieve better use of parliamentary time'.' May I draw his attention to an article in the current edition of The Parliamentarian on this subject — not by President Mugabe — discussing the time-tabling of Bills, Prime Minister's Question Time and the limitation of speeches? Will he ask the Select Committee on Procedure seriously to consider the matter?

Mr. Biffen: I will look sympathetically at the point which my hon. Friend raises. I suspect that the Select Committee on Procedure, once established, would need no prompting from me to engage in such reading.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on whether, when she was discussing the contract to build a university in Oman with her civil servants, she made it clear to them that if Cementation was to win the contract she would have an indirect pecuniary interest in that contract through her son being retained at a fee by Cementation International Ltd.? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend is required to declare that interest to civil servants according to the recommendation in the report of 1974 of the Select Committee on Members' Interests? Will he ensure that she makes that statement telling us what happened?

Mr. Biffen: I will refer the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: In view of some amazing statements made at the Chesterfield by-election, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend would arrange for a debate on the strange statement made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard) that the IRA were not terrorists?

Mr. Biffen: The tasks that I have are formidable enough without having to recognise the existence of the Chesterfield by-election. I have tried to proceed as though it were not happening. I suspect that I am the only Member of this House who does not appear to be going there, and I am happy to continue in that state of ignorance.

Mr. David Alton: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider early day motion 509, which deals with Liverpool city council's rates and budget for 1984?
[That this House notes reports in the national press detailing the Government's alleged intended response in the event of the militant-controlled Liverpool city council failing to bring in a legal rate; condemns those councillors who have irresponsibly plunged the city into this crisis; notes that those councillors contested the last municipal elections on a bonus manifesto which made promises that could only be achieved by a crippling 200 per cent. rate increase; believes that their actions can only jeopardise commercial and domestic ratepayers' interests, and that the ensuing publicity has already acted as a disincentive to potential industrialists and employers and has sapped confidence in the city; and therefore urges the city council's Labour leaders to rethink this kamikaze strategy.]
In view of the way in which the city would be plunged into extraordinary chaos if that went ahead, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the issue should be the subject of an early debate in the House?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He, too, will have seen at my left elbow the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, I am sure, will also have noted his remarks.

Sir Frederic Bennett: Reverting to requests that have been made for a debate on the Gulf and the suggestion that it be a rather wider debate than that, may I ask my right hon. Friend, in view of his comment that there might be a foreign affairs debate soon, to accept that so much has been and is going on in the middle east that we should not be content with one of those global-ranging foreign affairs debates? In other words, does he agree that there is sufficient to warrant a debate not only on the Gulf but on the middle east generally?

Mr. Biffen: I am sufficient of an optimist to be happy to extend the thought of the possibility in principle of a debate on foreign affairs, and sufficient of a pessimist to know that there cannot be a series of such debates.

Mr. Tom Cox: The Leader of the House will be aware of the deep concern that is shared by many hon. Members about the tragic events in Cyprus following the UDI by the Denktash regime last November. When will the House have an opportunity either to debate Cyprus or have a major statement by a senior Minister on the present position in Cyprus and the Government's attitude to it?

Mr. Biffen: I am afraid that no provision has been made for such a debate next week. I should have thought, particularly given the hon. Member's strong constituency interest in the matter, that he might wish to pursue the issue through private Member's time.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the large number of hon. Members who have signed early day motion 161 on the loan guarantee scheme? Will he also take note of the widespread public interest in the future of that scheme and consider whether we can have time to debate that and the financing of small businesses in general?
[That this House congratulates the Government on the success of the pilot loan guarantee scheme, and welcomes the important contribution this has made to the financing of 12,231 new and expanding small businesses; calls on the Government to develop and make this successful

scheme permanent, by abolishing the Government's 3 per cent. premium, and by extending the upper limit for loans from £75,000 to £250,000 so that medium-sized businesses, too, can have access to such loan capital for expansion.]

Mr. Biffen: I admire the pertinacity with which this subject is raised week after week. I am saddened that my original suggestion—that it should be contained within the Committee stage of the Finance Bill—has not found instant acceptance.

Mr. John Maxton: I welcome the statement which the Leader of the House made about the ninth PAC report. Is he aware that there will be some anger that he is linking it with other outstanding PAC reports, as this is one of the most damaging that the PAC has produced for many years? Is he aware that there will be considerable anger in Scotland that an issue as controversial as this is not to be debated in the House as quickly as possible? Is he aware also that the Secretary of State for Scotland gave approval to the sale and the sums of money received? Should not the Secretary of State for Scotland come to the Dispatch Box as soon as possible next week to make a statement?

Mr. Biffen: I shall not be drawn into an argument about the merits of the case ahead of the publication of the Government's response. I must stand by my earlier replies.

Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. Friend clarify what he meant when he said that we cannot have a series of foreign affairs debates? Is it not a long time since we had a foreign affairs debate? Does my right hon. Friend think that we have enough such debates? Should not we have more of them?

Mr. Biffen: Perhaps afterwards I can have a word with my right hon. Friend to explain at length what cannot be condensed into a few words. If we have a debate on the middle east, it must be of sufficient geographic conception to cover most of the difficult areas. I cannot offer a debate on the Lebanon, to be followed by a debate on the Hormuz straits, to be followed by a debate on Latin America.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the combined effects of the disgracefully high level of unemployment and the reduction in the strength of Her Majesty's factory inspectorate because of Government cuts have caused a growth in the exploitation of workers through sweated labour in areas such as Leicester? May we have a debate on this awful phenomenon which is worrying greatly many cities, including Leicester?

Mr. Biffen: I shall refer the hon. and learned Gentleman's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: As the White Paper relating to the Representation of the People Acts has been published for some weeks and hon. Members have had the opportunity to study its conclusions, will it be convenient in the next week or two to have the debate that my right hon. Friend has promised the House?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot go beyond what I said on the last occasion that my hon. Friend pressed me on this point. A debate certainly will take place.

Mr. Tony Blair: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to ensure that on Monday the Foreign Secretary, when speaking in the GCHQ debate, will refer to the serious position that has arisen at the department for national savings in Durham city, where many of my constituents work? They were told that if they wanted to take holiday leave today to come to see me, they could not have it, and that if they wanted holiday leave for any other purpose, they could have it. They were told that they could see me not as trade unionists but "on a personal and private" basis. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Foreign Secretary deals with this affront to parliamentary democracy?

Mr. Biffen: I shall draw that point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that this is the fourth occasion in two months that I have taken the opportunity to ask him whether he could bring to the House the responsible Minister to make a statement on the dumping of nuclear waste in the northeast of England? If we cannot have a statement from the Minister, may we have a statement about a statement?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been listening attentively to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that there will be a happy consequence.

Mr. Harry Cowans: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a shame that at this early stage of a major constitutional change he must descend to the level of introducing a guillotine motion when the Opposition's views are shared by his right hon. and hon. Friends? Is it not a tragedy that the party that is supposed to stand up for freedom descends to this level to prevent freedom of speech and the case being argued? Does the right hon. Gentleman hold his position because he has such a weak case he is frightened that, without the use of the guillotine, the weakness of his case will be exposed?

Mr. Biffen: People with qualities of guilt and shame are never made Leaders of the House.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: This week the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the noble Lord Gray, said that a decision by the Scottish Office was imminent on the level of support to be given to tenant farmers and land owners in the Scottish Highlands for damage to their property during the adverse weather in the new year. Will the Leader of the House take the opportunity to convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister of State the fact that many hon. Members would be delighted if a Scottish Office Minister were to make that statement in the House so that questions could be asked?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly do that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In Monday's debate on GCHQ, will the Minister responsible for making the statement on behalf of the Government say whether this is the thin end of the wedge for other trade unionists in, say, the higher echelons of British Telecom and whether their trade union rights will be whittled away? Are the Government thinking about other areas wherein they will offer £1,000 for trade union membership? Will the Leader of the House answer the question put to me in Chesterfield to the effect that there is a strong rumour that Mark Thatcher has refused £1,000 to leave the family?

Mr. Biffen: I believe that the House hopes that on Monday the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, so that he can make his pithy remarks at greater length.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: As the Government have been responsible for poaching about £120 million from the Liverpool city council, and. in view of the abortive nature of the meeting between the council and the Secretary of State for the Environment, does the Leader of the House believe that there is an urgent need to debate the issue so that the House may be made fully aware of the effects of that action and the 10 years of mismanagement by the Liberal party which placed Liverpool city council in that position?

Mr. Biffen: I note the point, to which the hon. Gentleman returns. There is no provision for such a debate next week, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is in the Chamber and will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the Leader of the House use his not inconsiderable powers over the time of the House and his influence on his colleagues to secure support for the passage of the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968 (Amendment) Bill, which amends my Act? Will he bear in mind the kind words last week for pensioners uttered by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, with responsibility for the disabled, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), and the fact that the Secretary of State for the Environment, in a previous incarnation, gave Conservative support to my proposal?

Mr. Biffen: I would not wish to be thought to be forthcoming, but I shall look at that point.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: In view of the uncertainty hanging over the agriculture industry, will my right hon. Friend consider providing an opportunity for an early debate on it so that the House may reflect on the extraordinary achievement of one of our most successful industries?

Mr. Biffen: No provision has been made for such a debate in the immediate future. Such is the nature of the European Community that I believe that through its agencies the subject will enthrall the House from time to time.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I refer to the point raised earlier about the conduct of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher). Is the Leader of the House aware that this is not the first time that that Minister has been found to be incompetent in dealing with matters affecting Scottish colleges of education? This time it is much worse than incompetence, because the sale of Hamilton college is one of the most irresponsible pieces of public asset stripping that any Committee of the House has uncovered. If the Under-Secretary of State refuses to do the decent thing and resign, will the Leader of the House report him to the Prime Minister so that she can sack him, because he is clearly unfit to hold ministerial office?

Mr. Biffen: It is nice to know in which water we are swimming. I repudiate entirely the hon. Gentleman's personal and offensive remarks against my hon. Friend. Clearly the House will wish to have a Government


comment on the Public Accounts Committee report on Hamilton college and, understandably, look for a debate thereafter.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does the Leader of the House agree that the procedural vandalism and rubbishing of the House of Commons that is now taking place by means of catcalls from either side of the Chamber, sheer noise and the burying of serious debate in the Chamber is the result—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Of radio.

Mr. Atkinson: No, not of radio, but of the way in which the Government are using their more than 200 built-in majority to ride roughshod over opinion throughout the country? In my constituency, for example, 55 per cent. of economically active people under the age of 20 years are unable to find work. In the London borough of Haringey, a wealthy borough, 40 per cent. of those under 20 years of age are unemployed and unable to work—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now taking business questions and the hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Atkinson: Indeed. I welcome the debate on Welsh affairs next week, for it will provide a means of ventilating serious opinion in Wales, but there is a need for the Government to recognise what they are doing to Parliament. You, too, Mr. Speaker, must look with dismay at what is happening in this place. This is about the worst Parliament that I can recollect in 20 years. There is no level of debate and the answers from Ministers amount to purility. This will drive the British people to bring down the Government physically. That is what will happen if the Government continue to ignore the warnings which come from those who are trying to make serious observations on behalf of their constituents who are unable to work.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question and not advance an argument. The House is taking business questions.

Mr. Biffen: I believe that this House of Commons, no less than its predecessors and, I suspect, no less than its successors, will have the capacity to discriminate between the serious and the less than serious. If occasionally it acts as if it were on the terraces, that is no more and no less than what it has been doing for generations. I do not believe that this Parliament is any worse than its predecessors in that respect and, in my view, it is part of its vitality that we would lose, and lose to our disadvantage.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Leader of the House will be aware that yesterday I raised a point of order about an instruction that I understood had been issued by Treasury Ministers preventing, or attempting to prevent, civil servants from coming to the Lobby today in protest about the union ban at GCHQ. I now have a circular that is headed B 13/84 under the title "Management In confidence". I understand that it has been circulated by one of the Departments of State—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is business questions. There is important business to follow, including a statement by the Minister for Overseas Development. The hon.

Gentleman must ask a question and not make the speech which he might have the opportunity of making on Monday if he is able to catch my eye.

Mr. Banks: I should like to catch your eye on Monday, Mr. Speaker, but I shall be in Chesterfield.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot make his speech now.

Mr. Banks: Even with your eye, Mr. speaker, I doubt whether you could expect to see as far as Chesterfield.
Will the Leader of the House impress upon Treasury Ministers that instructions to Civil Service Departments that civil servants will be prevented from attending the Lobby today, and perhaps prevented from hearing the debate on Monday, are in breach of the rights of Members to have access to their constituents and of constituents to have access to their Members? Will the right hon. Gentleman please ask his ministerial colleagues to withdraw circular B13/84?

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly take up that issue with Treasury Ministers.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did those in the right hon. Gentleman's office tell him that I hoped to raise the question of early day motion 517, which has been signed by a former Home Secretary, former Defence Ministers and by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who know most about the issue?
[That this House calls attention to the fact that contrary to the Prime Minister's reply on 21st February, Official Report, column 695, Her Majesty's Government have never explained the discrepancy between the statement in paragraph 110 of the Falklands Campaign: the Lessons, Cmnd. 8758, that the Conqueror detected the General Belgrano on 2nd May 1982, and the statement of the Commander of the Conqueror made in the book, 'Our Falklands War: the men of the Task Force tell THEIR story', by Geoffrey Underwood, introduced by Major-General Sir Jeremy Moore, K.C.B., O.B.E., M.C., that he sighted the Belgrano visually early in the afternoon of 1st May and followed the Belgrano for over 30 hours; and calls upon the Prime Minister either to make a statement to the House explaining this disparity, or to appoint a judge of the Appeal Court to determine whether her statement or that of the submarine commander tells the truth.]
The motion relates to the conflicting statements on the sinking of the Belgrano. Albeit that the right hon. Gentleman says that he does not are the quality of shame—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The wish to make statements seems to be contagious. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about business next week.

Mr. Dalyell: My question is related to the early day motion. Has the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to ascertain whether it was the submarine commander or the Prime Minster who deceived us?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman in informing me that he would raise this matter. Clearly no provision has been made for a debate next week on the early day motion. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Allan Roberts: To take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), will the Leader of the House arrange a debate next week on the future of democracy in Great Britain? We are now facing major attacks on the democratic right to join a free trade union. The guillotining of the Rates Bill next week is a major attack on the democratic rights of local electors. Will he confirm that even now the Government are attacking the freedom of the media? Is there any truth in the rumour that he is supporting the Government Whips in putting pressure on Back Bench Conservative Members who have complained to the BBC because of threats of re-selection by their constituency Conservative parties because they were not included in the "Panorama" programme on Right-wing infiltration into the Conservative party?

Mr. Biffen: As I listened to the hon. Gentleman, it seemed that he had a good all-purpose speech which he should be able to use on several occasions next week.

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the Leader of the House arrange as soon as possible a full day's debate on transport in Government time? Since 1979 time has been given to transport matters only on Supply days. Surely the complex and urgent problems of transport are the responsibility of the Government as well as of the Opposition.

Mr. Biffen: I am sorry, but I must reply that there is no provision for such a debate next week. I cannot hold out very much hope of an early debate. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Given the unsatisfactory and inadequate replies to my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the fact that the GCHQ debate on Monday will take place on the 150th anniversary of the Tolpuddle martyrs and the Prime Minister's crazy notion that democracy is defended by suppressing it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask the question"] I am asking the question. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that certain Ministers are responsible for having instructed heads of Departments within the Civil Service to refuse the right to take annual leave to trade unionists who wished to come to the House today or next Tuesday.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on Monday to explain why the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are justified in saying that the Government's action stops at GCHQ? Does he accept that those who work in the national savings department and a number of other departments in London and elsewhere have been told that they will not be able to take part of their annual leave, or to make flexi-time arrangements, to attend the House today or on Tuesday next week? Will he ensure that the Ministers responsible answer these questions on Monday?

Mr. Biffen: I do not think that I can helpfully add to what I have already said to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). I shall draw the remarks of the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friends who will be taking part in Monday's debate.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make about the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order, which is to be debated on Thursday of next week.
On the last occasion when an Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order was debated Members asked me for an earlier indication than on the day itself of what matters would be in order to be discussed. It might be helpful if I were to say now that since next Thursday's order contains a Vote on Account, all the matters for which Northern Ireland Departments are responsible will be in order. The principal excluded subjects are police and security. For the future, I suggest that Members who wish to obtain advice on the scope of these orders may care to consult the Clerk of Supply in the Public Bill Office.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it in order at this stage, Mr. Speaker, to make a private statement?

Mr. Speaker: No. A point of order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I take up the question which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Does not privilege arise when a member of the public, by the threat of discipline, is prevented from taking industrial action to see his Member of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows the rule about that very well. If it is his view that a matter of privilege is involved, he should write to me about it.

Crown Agents

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): Mr. Speaker, with permission I should like to make a statement on the future of the Crown Agents.
Last summer the Government of Brunei terminated their contract with the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations for the management of their investments. This resulted in significant loss of income to the Crown Agents, amounting to up to £4 million in a full year, so that action became necessary to enable them to meet their financial duties under the Crown Agents Act 1979.
The board of Crown Agents accordingly submitted to the Government proposals for the reorganisation and improvement of the efficiency of the business, designed to enable them to achieve financial viability not later than 1986. Those proposals included the reduction of staff from about 1,200 to under 900, changes in terms of service to enable them to provide services competitively, and the sale of their principal offices at 4, Millbank, which would make possible the reduction of the commencing capital debt from its current level of £19·8 million to £9 million.
The Government have taken the opportunity to undertake a thorough review of the future of the Crown Agents and the need for their continued existence in their present form. In undertaking this, we have had regard to the Government's policy of reducing the size of the public sector, to the services which the Crown Agents provide for developing countries, and to their value to Britain's own interests.
On the basis of this review I expect Crown Agents to be fully profitable by not later than 1986.
After very careful consideration of this and other factors and of the representations made to me, the Government have decided broadly to endorse the proposals of the board of Crown Agents for their reorganisation with a view to their privatisation in due course. The timing and method of privatisation will be settled later. Pending the necessary legislation, the board will set in train appropriate measures of internal reorganisation in order to facilitate privatisation.
To facilitate the financing of this reorganisation, it is the Government's intention to waive in full under section 17(4) of the Crown Agents Act 1979 the interest due on the commencing capital debt in 1984, and to seek parliamentary approval under section 17(10) for any waiver necessary in 1985 and 1986.
I believe that this decision will enable the Crown Agents, under their vigorous chairman, Mr. Peter Graham, to continue to serve successfully both Britain and the developing world.

Mr. George Robertson: Ministers of the present Government have in the past rightly complimented the Crown Agents on their invaluable role. It would therefore be disgraceful if the ideological paws of the Treasury were to be allowed to wipe out our huge gains from their work with Third-world countries. They have made valiant efforts to reach their present level of efficiency and growth, and it would be indefensible if those achievements were in any way compromised or destroyed. This announcement, therefore, is welcome

inasmuch as, and only inasmuch as, it accepts the Crown Agents' reorganisation plan and the rescheduling—to coin a phrase—of the immediate debt problems of the Crown Agents. The threat of unnecessary and damaging privatisation is, however, still to hang over the heads of the Crown Agents. Privatisation would make no sense at all, and it would enormously damage the viability and independence of the Crown Agents if they still faced the threat of privatisation in the indefinite future. As long as the uncertainty and indecision continue, so long will we continue to rob the Crown Agents of the talent which they have been losing during the period of uncertainty which they have suffered since last September.
I have four questions to ask the Minister. First, what consultations have the Government had with the client countries of the Crown Agents? It is the views and the confidence of those countries which determine the continuing value of the Crown Agents to our country and economy.
Secondly, what consultations have there been with the staff of the Crown Agents? For a substantial period there has been uncertainty about the Minister's intentions in relation to the Crown Agents. Members of staff have almost daily seen newspaper reports predicting dreadful prospects for the organisation in which they work. The burden of work has been considerable since the staff cuts were made, and the staff now face further cuts. Are the staff likely to be happy with the future arrangements for the organisation? Thirdly, what is the position of the pensions office in East Kilbride? The Minister made no mention of this in his statement, but in today's Financial Times there is an authoritative article which managed with considerable skill to predict the bulk of the Minister's statement. It states that the pensions department in East Kilbride will be
subsumed within a Whitehall department.
Will the Minister say whether that is true? The pensions department accounts for almost £1 million of the Crown Agents' profits. What are the implications of this reduction in profit capacity for the 1986 target date set by the right hon. Gentleman for the Crown Agents to become profitable?
Finally, the Minister mentioned the possibility of selling 4, Millbank as part of the process of reducing the debt of the Crown Agents. What studies have been made of the London property market which suggest that, in the interests of the public, this would be the best time to sell a valuable property?

Mr. Raison: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his somewhat limited welcome of our decision not to close down the Crown Agents. On the question of privatisation, our first aim is to carry through the reorganisation effectively. When that has been done we shall consider ways of privatising parts, and probably the whole, of the Crown Agents. We believe that that will be useful and will increase the competitive capacity of the Crown Agents. I understand that the chairman is very happy with the future that we have suggested.
The hon. Gentleman's first question was about consultations with the client countries. We have not had formal consultations with client countries, but we have had many discussions with people in different parts of the world about the role of the Crown Agents. I acknowledge the respect in which they are held.
I have seen representatives of the Crown Agents trade unions, both in London and in East Kilbride. I should be happy to meet them again to discuss the implications of our decision for their future. At present we have no plans to subsume the pensions office in East Kilbride within the Government machine. On the other hand, when privatisation comes about, we shall have to consider what is the best way of handling the pensions operation.
The Crown Agents have considered the sale of 4, Millbank. They believe that they could make a substantial sum from that sale. They believe that it is right to sell the property, and I endorse that belief.

Sir Bernard Braine: Whatever the final decision on this matter, does not the interim statement that we have heard leave the Crown Agents and their clients —over 100 countries and 4,000 exporting companies are involved—in a state of doubt and uncertainty? Can that be in the national interest? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are 4,000 British companies—many quite small — which depend in large measure on the Crown Agents for their exports? Has any study been made of the benefits which would accrue to the Crown Agents from privatisation, compared with the undoubted risk that business will go to our competitors overseas?

Mr. Raison: I accept the value of the Crown Agents to British industry. That is one of the reasons why we have decided to accept the proposals for reorganisation rather than go for closure. However, as we move on towards privatisation it will be possible to look at the whole picture in such a way as to ensure that the important interests which my hon. Friend mentions can be maintained.

Mr. Guy Barnett: How can the Minister describe his statement as a thorough review when he has not troubled to have formal consultations with 100 or more Government principals who use the Crown Agents and regard them as a disinterested service who work on their behalf? Is it not wrong for him to come to the House and make a statement of this type without having consulted those who rely on the Crown Agents for their services?
With regard to what the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said, does the Minister realise that threats of privatisation will put an end to the disinterested service which the Crown Agents now provide, and might well destroy them? Does he recognise the vital importance of the Crown Agents being regarded as the servants of the 100 Governments and the several hundred organisations overseas which use their services? They will not continue to use those services unless they remain a public agency, and will not use them if they are subject to the possibility of privatisation.

Mr. Raison: In the past few days we have given very careful consideration to the points that the hon. Gentleman raises. No one can say that we have treated the matter lightly. We have thought about those factors, but it is for the Government to make a decision, and that is what we have done. The way in which we have made the decision will enable us to move forward the prospects of getting the reorganisation implemented — that is important — and then to consider the best way in which to progress to privatisation without throwing away the advantages which I recognise are presented by the existence of the Crown Agents.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he carries the House with him in his

congratulations to the chairman of the Crown Agents, Mr. Peter Graham? Is he further aware that he carries the majority of the House with him in his decision not to close the Crown Agents down, as they have rendered excellent service to Britain and countries overseas? With regard to privatisation, surely the question is whether the Crown Agents, when privatised, can continue to render those services. I can see no logical reason why that should not be so.

Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. He is right about privatisation. It is possible to achieve privatisation, while securing the benefits which the Crown Agents undoubtedly give Britain.

Mr. Bruce Milian: Although I fully support the criticism about the unnecessary dogmatism concerning privatisation, may I return to the specific point about the pensions branch at East Kilbride, as what the Minister has said threatens it? May I remind the Minister that the transfer to East Kilbride was to make up the numbers of what had been a much reduced Civil Service dispersal to Scotland? Will he assure me either that the branch will stay there or, if there is a reduction in numbers, there will be additional Civil Service dispersal to make up the numbers which were originally promised?

Mr. Raison: We have no plans at present to change the work which is carried out at East Kilbride on the pensions side. It is possible that, as and when we progress towards privatisation, there will be a change in the status of the work done there. However, it is extremely likely that a substantial part of the work that is done for the Overseas Development Administration will remain in the public sector. There should therefore not be unnecessary alarm in East Kilbride.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on what I believe to be a balanced decision. We are to retain the services of the Crown Agents, their expertise, contacts and the confidence of overseas Governments in taking procurements through them. This will also preserve the interests of the companies which have benefited from procurement through them. In their independence, they will provide a more efficient service to their clients in Britain and overseas. Will the privatised Crown Agents continue to enjoy the preferred status which they enjoy on procurement through the Overseas Development Administration?

Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about our plans. I am sure that experience will prove him right. It would be a mistake to think that the Crown Agents have preferred status in all respects. Only about 20 per cent. of the goods procured under British bilateral aid comes through them; the rest comes through the private sector. They work closely with the aid programme. That is as it should be, but there is plenty of scope for private contractors to compete.

Mr. David Alton: Does the Minister agree that many people outside the House perceive his statement as a poisoned chalice which contains praise for the Crown Agents and the seeds of their destruction? Does he agree that if, as he says, the Crown Agents are to be profitable by 1986, they might just as well stay as they are, as the Government's decision is purely dogmatic and has been made for doctrinaire reasons?

Mr. Raison: I do not believe that my statement will be seen as a poisoned chalice. I believe that it will be seen widely as a sensible development plan for the future which is capable of making the best use of the skills and resources embodied in the Crown Agents.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Crown Agents and their customers have changed since my grandfather was one of them? Does he agree also that what is important for the Crown Agents' customers is that the independence of the customers should be matched by the independence of the Crown Agents and their service should be justified by competitiveness?

Mr. Raison: I agree. We bear those factors in mind, and will continue to bear them in mind as we approach privatisation.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monldands, West): Is the Minister aware that he has not made one progressive statement from the Dispatch Box since taking over the Ministry for Overseas Development? Is he further aware that, however today's statement is dressed up, it will cause great anxiety to the civil servants involved and to the developing countries, many of which have been served by the Crown Agents for 150 years? They have been served extremely well and will find the statement inexplicable. Does he accept that there is no way in which privatisation will lead to the type of objectivity and neutrality for which the Crown Agents have been greatly praised?

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman's and my ideas of progressive statements are probably very different. I believe that my statement is progressive. It outlines a sensible and potentially viable future for the Crown Agents. It is a way in which to strengthen what they already have in the immediate future. It will enable the Crown Agents to operate competitively and effectively.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: With regard to the announcement of a timetable leading to privatisation, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is now abundant evidence that, having incurred record losses on own dealings account, having had £3·5 billion out of their £4·5 billion worth of investment funds which they manage transferred to American competitors, and now having been refused the right to tender to one of their major clients, privatisation is long overdue and that the Crown Agents have for some time let the Crown down? No private company could spend two years incurring such losses. Why should the taxpayer have to do so?

Mr. Raison: There have been difficulties in Brunei. The difficulty reported in today's newspapers is due to a misunderstanding. I hope that it can be resolved. I have no doubt that our decision to reorganise with a view to privatisation is right, and I hope that it can be brought about before too long. We are anxious to ensure that the real assets, skills and abilities of the Crown Agents are not wasted. We believe that our plan is the best way in which to make good use of them.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is not the history of the Crown Agents a great deal of unsung good and the occasional, albeit much publicised, fiasco? In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), the Minister used the phrase, "very careful consideration". Is that not an abuse of the English language? How can one talk about careful consideration when none of the 100 principals, either Third world developing Governments or

universities in the Third world, and none of the 300 organisations with which the Crown Agents deal, have been consulted? How can there have been careful consideration when those consultations have not, as I understand it, taken place formally?

Mr. Raison: It is no secret—the matter has been in the open since last September—that the future of the Crown Agents is under discussion. Those who have wished to make representations to the Government have done so in no uncertain manner, and there has been nothing secret about the operation. Anyone with a point to make has made it and we have listened carefully. We have taken much trouble over the decision, made up our minds and come up with the right answer.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I am relieved to hear that the Crown Agents are to continue, albeit in a slightly different form, and I endorse the points made from both sides of the House about the importance of safeguarding the position of overseas pensioners. Will my right hon. Friend clarify two matters which are not clear to me? First, he spoke about achieving profitability by 1986. Does that presuppose that that will happen before privatisation? Secondly, he referred to writing off debts and interest. Will that be found from the contingency reserve or from other parts of the departmental budget, which I consider is already too low?

Mr. Raison: With regard to my hon. Friend's question about profitability by 1986, we hope to achieve profitability before privatisation takes place. Writing off debt will not affect the departmental budget.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the fact that the Crown Agents are known not to be profit-oriented, and therefore impartial, is one of their most valuable assets? Is not the Minister risking dissipating that asset by his proposals? He says that we should wait and hear what people say, but it is surely irresponsible not to consult when the people concerned are busy with many other matters. To make a proper assessment, the hon. Gentleman has an obligation to ask questions. Finally if the Minister goes ahead with the decision in principle, will he first offer the Crown Agents for sale to its principals overseas?

Mr. Raison: I do not believe, nor does the Crown Agents board, that it is satisfactory for such an organisation to operate unprofitably. It is also contrary to the conditions of the governing Act of Parliament. I believe that the board will endorse and welcome the decision, but it is for the board to speak for itself.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that it ill becomes the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) to talk about privatisation of the Crown Agents, when he was engaged with Slater Walker in global activities similar to those that might be undertaken by the privatised Crown Agents? As a result, Slater Walker had to be rescued by the taxpayer after a few years of activity. The taxpayer bailed out that company when the Labour Government were in office.
Why is a price not available now if the business is capable of being privatised? In a pure entrepreneurial world, why is it not possible to privatise the Crown Agents without writing off their debts for 1984 to 1986? There is always a price for a commodity. Will the Minister ensure that those who privatise Hamilton teacher training college


will not be allowed near the Crown Agents, in view of what has happened there? Finally, will the Minister bear in mind that the Crown Agents privatised themselves in the early 1970s, or at least played at privatisation? When they played at speculating they privatised from within, not by Government edict, and finished up being bailed out by the taxpayer at a cost of more than £100 million. Why do we need to privatise them again?

Mr. Raison: The remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) were wholly and typically irrelevant.
The Crown Agents are not being privatised immediately, because they received a considerable blow last year from the withdrawal of the handling of the Brunei investments. The Government and the Crown Agents rightly felt that it was right to take time to reorganise the agents' operations, to allow them to recover their equilibrium and to plan for the future. That process is under way.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the history of the Crown Agents have little or no bearing on what we are discussing now.

BILL PRESENTED

HEREDITARY PEERAGES

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton, supported by Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Gordon Brown, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Tom Torney, Mr. Jack Straw, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Roger Stott, Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, presented a Bill to end the practice of the creation of hereditary peerages; to make provision for the ending of existing peerages on the demise of the present incumbent; and to end the custom whereby retired Prime Ministers and other senior government and parliamentary office-holders are offered peerages: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 March and to be printed [Bill 109.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, if the Pensions Commutation Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed; and that as soon as the proceedings on any Money Resolution come to by the House in relation to the Bill have been concluded this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Orders of the Day — Pensions Commutation Bill

Order for Second Reading read

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of this minor measure is to modernise the arrangements, established by the Pensions Commutation Act 1871 and the Pensions Commutation Act 1882, for commuting certain pensions into lump sum payments. Dissolving the pensions commutation board is expected to lead to a reduction in the administrative costs of providing the commutation service with the benefit going to the individual pensioners concerned.
The board was originally established by act of Parliament in 1869. It is composed entirely of officials, the chairman being the director of the national investment and loans office in his capacity as comptroller-general of the national debt office. Other members are appointed from the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Health and Social Security, and the Treasury.
The right to apply to the Pensions Commutation Board for commutation of part of a pension is conferred by various Acts of Parliament. At present, almost all applications come from retired officers of the armed forces, although certain civilians in receipt of pensions awarded for abolition of office before 1972 are also entitled to apply. The board is dealing with more than 1,000 applications a year, involving lump sum payments totalling about £20 million a year.
When the board was established, commutation decisions were more difficult, and potentially more controversial than they are now. That, no doubt, was why elaborate control procedures were established. However, in recent years, when we have had a mass of published information about the likely effects on life expectancy of various medical conditions, much of the work of the board has become routine. Commutation decisions are taken in accordance with tables drawn up by the Government Actuary. Most applicants receive the full amount, unless medical evidence dictates otherwise.
In recent years the board has become something of a historical curiosity. It is insulated from the main pensions commutation work of the Ministry of Defence. The national investment and loans office, with which it is associated, has no other pension or commutation functions. Nevertheless, the board has to meet every six weeks or so. As a result of changes in pension arrangements for the armed forces, introduced in 1978, the board's work will eventually come to an end, but there is expected to be a substantial body of work each year, until the end of the century and beyond.
The main effect of the Bill will be to dissolve the pensions commutation board and, in effect, pass the responsibility to the Secretary of State for Defence. The commutation work on officers' pensions will be done, like normal departmental business, by the division of the Ministry of Defence that deals with other pensions matters.
The Bill is confined entirely to changing administrative procedures. It does not affect in any way the rights of any


person who is eligible to be a potential applicant, nor does it affect the amount of money that he or she is likely to receive.
Applicants for commutation are charged a fee which is related to the costs of providing the service. By making the changes proposed in the Bill, we can reduce the administrative costs, and that will be of benefit to applicants.
The Officers' Pension Society has been consulted and has raised no objection.
Under the provisions of the 1871 Act, commutation awards are paid out of funds administered at present by the National Investment and Loans Office and are reimbursed by annuity payments from the Votes upon which the respective pensions were charged. To change these provisions could affect the way in which the defence budget is at present controlled and the Bill therefore leaves them in place. However, it also provides for the financing of the awards direct from Votes and for the early discharge of annuities, thus giving greater flexibility.
The Bill also provides for the continuing in force of the existing regulations concerned with fees and the commutation tables.
This is a very modest measure, but it will secure a worthwhile reduction in costs and an improvement in efficiency. I commend it to the House.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: The Opposition accept that the board has become an anachronism, having been set up in Victorian times when decisions about life expectancy were far more difficult to make. We are interested to note that the Government have now acquired a great deal more expertise in assessing life expectancy and we may wish to consult them from time to time about how it is done.
I have been in touch with the Officers' Pension Society, which welcomes the measure. It believes that the process will be speeded up and that applications to medical boards may be handled with more understanding than previously.
I have just one question. Perhaps the Minister will say something about the age limits now applying to applicants. I understand that one applicant applied on his 89th birthday, claiming that he needed the money to help him to "break in" his third wife, whatever that may mean. Presumably applications of that kind will be ruled out in future.
The Opposition do not wish to oppose or criticise the Bill in any way.

Mr. Michael Stern: I wish to make two brief points. I share the view of both sides on the necessity for the Bill. I wish to comment on it only because it seems a shame that in seeking to modernise a system set up in 1871 the Bill modernises only the structure rather than the work carried out within it. The processes by which retired officers apply for commutation of pensions will remain firmly rooted in the 1870s and will bear no comparison with the processes by which similar commutations are effected under normal commercial and private occupational pension schemes. I raise these points not to put the officers concerned in a privileged position,

but to suggest that their situation should be no better and no worse than that of people in other occupations who apply for commutation.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State said that under the Bill, as under the system set up in 1871, an officer might be charged a fee for the work done in calculating and certifying the amount of commutation to which he was entitled. Does any member of an occupational pension scheme expect to pay such a fee, often before knowing how much he will receive and before deciding whether he wishes to go ahead with commutation? That is certainly not the practice of insurance companies and it seems a shame that it should continue in relation to retired officers' pensions.
My second point relates to the amount of the commutation. As the House will be aware, this is laid down in a table produced from time to time, the latest being in the Pensions Commutation (Amendment) Regulations 1983. The table makes certain assumptions which were valid then but may not be valid now. Nevertheless, the regulations continue to apply. When they were made, it was assumed that the interest rate to be taken into account was 11 per cent. That would not be the case today, but the regulations are still in force. Similar assumptions were made about future pensions increases which would apply to pensioners under the existing Act. I do not know whether the same assumptions would be made today.
In the real world outside, anyone applying for commutation of all or part of a pension receives a rate based on conditions at the date of application, not on tables which may be a year or more out of date. I wish to suggest an alternative system. It may work to the detriment or the benefit of the officers concerned, but it will certainly work in favour of reality. Rather than relying on tables that the Government may update from time to time, for the specific and limited case the applicant should be able to apply to the Government Actuary for a certificate of the commutable value of his pension on that date. That system operates very well in commercial pension schemes and is certainly far more flexible than the system carried over from the 1871 Act.
Finally, like everyone else, I welcome the Bill in the limited terms in which it has been introduced, but I should have hoped that the opportunity would be taken to bring the whole scheme rather than merely its administration out of the 1870s.

Mr. Hayhoe: I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) for the welcome that she gave to the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) for the general welcome that he has given to the Bill. I shall try to answer the various questions raised.
I understand that there is no age limit as such, but that the tables stop at age 89, so the individual to whom the hon. Member for Thurrock referred would be chancing his luck. Nevertheless, I hope that he found the money that he received helpful for the purpose that he had in mind. If anyone over the age of 89 applied for commutation, we should of course consult the Government Actuary, but I understand that it is extremely unlikely that much money would be involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West rightly said that we had not taken the opportunity of this


modest measure to make wider changes. I thought that I had made it clear that we saw advantage in making this very small but useful change in administration as the reduction in fees would benefit the applicants. Fees are charged only if the award is accepted. The person can ask for commutation and be told the amount that has been determined. He or she can then decide whether to accept it and pay the fee. The fees are payable under the old legislation, and no change has been made in that respect, save to ensure that they are less likely to rise in future than they would under the old arrangements.
My hon. Friend is right to state that the commutation tables remain in force for a limited period and are changed from time to time. It is probably in the interests of administrative efficiency to avoid the need for separate calculations to be made for each individual request for commutation. I understand that in future the process will be exactly the same for officers and other ranks. I hope that that, too, will commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Further proceedings postponed pursuant to order this day.

PENSIONS COMMUTATION BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pensions Commutation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) amounts awarded as commutations under the Pensions Commutation Act 1871; and
(b) amounts paid under the Act so resulting in respect of the discharge of any liability to pay an annuity under section 8 of the said Act of 1871. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

PENSIONS COMMUTATION BILL

Bill immediately considered in Committee,. reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Mr. Peter Snape: The House will be aware that the Bill was the subject, if not of controversy, certainly of some debate in the Second Reading Committee and at a further stage, initiated by Opposition Members. I shall refer to part II and to the ascertainment of limitation tonnage in clause 12. The Minister will remember from the debates on those two previous occasions that the question that exercised Opposition Members was the vexed problem of tonnage limitation and the historical reason why the damage caused to a structure by a ship is covered in a certain way for insurance purposes. That insurance system for ships bears little resemblance to vehicle insurance, to which hon. Members may be more accustomed, as it is based on tonnage. The result has been that for many years shipowners have, through their insurers, paid for only a small proportion of the damage caused by their ships.
This matter is especially topical at present because, wearing another hat, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport has some responsibility for the future of our railway system. He will be as aware as I am that the problem of adequate finance for our railway system has exercised both Conservative and Labour Governments and is, of necessity, controversial at present.
The limitation of liability under clause 12 has proved to be extremely expensive for British Rail and an application to close a stretch of railway line running from Gilberdyke junction to a point near to Doncaster is now before the Department of Transport. The proposal to close that railway line arises as a direct result of damage caused to a bridge at Goole by passing ships striking it.
Because of clause 12, British Rail has failed consistently over the years to receive adequate compensation for damage caused to the bridge, and it now says that it will cost approximately £2 million to repair the bridge. Because British Rail says that it cannot afford £2 million and there is no other source of funding for the project, it has initiated the closure procedure for that stretch of railway line.
Clause 12 will also have an impact on the railway system further north. The alternative route to Hull by rail, if one does not use the line that is to be closed, is via Selby. With your knowledge of that part of the world, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that the railway line from Selby to Hull passes over a swing bridge at Selby. Clause 12 will cause difficulties for British Rail, because the bridge has been struck by passing ships on a number of occasions. After those accidents it has not always been easy to trace the shipowners concerned, and even when they have been traced it has been impossible for British Rail to receive adequate compensation for damage caused to its bridges because of the ascertainment of limitation tonnage in clause 12.
We tried in the Second Reading Committee and at a further stage to persuade the Minister that that was the case. We hoped, because those matters were grouped under the umbrella of his Department, that he would


consider with sympathy the need for adequate repair of one or possibly both bridges. We went so far as to suggest that he might be able to find the funds to replace completely the damaged bridge at Goole so that the railway line closure proposal could be withdrawn.
Understandably, the Minister referred us continually to clause 12 and said that it was not a matter for the Department of Transport to fund those needs from its sources, but for British Rail to trace the owners of the offending ships and to proceed accordingly against them under clause 12. However, regardless of the amount of damage that each ship causes to such a structure, because of the wording of clause 12 the compensation available is extremely limited and has rarely, if ever, covered the cost of the damage caused by the blow from the passing ship.
Opposition Members understand the Minister's dilemma. It is difficult to see how, under the Bill, sufficient funds could be found to cover the problem. It is unjust that a publicly owned industry which provides a service should be forced to withdraw that service because of the tonnage limitation clause.
The Minister will know that, coincidentally, today is the closing date for objections to be sent to the Transport Users Consultative Committee about the proposed closure of that line. I hope that in considering the recommendations of the TUCC the Minister will insist on a public inquiry into the future of the line, so that the Bill can be brought to the attention of whoever conducts the inquiry, and I hope that it will be pointed out to him that clause 12 has caused considerable financial problems for British Rail. Unless another method of financing is found, this line, and perhaps the one from Selby to Hull, will be closed. Any railway line that crosses a navigable river runs the risk of being damaged, the line may eventually be closed, and the people of that area will be deprived of a service.
We are aware that the Department is in difficulty on this matter, since British Rail has promised to keep open the line between Selby and York now that the east coast mainline has been diverted because of the new Selby coalfield. British Rail pledged in the mid-1970s, in agreement with the National Coal Board, that when funding was provided for the Selby diversion, a shuttle service would continue to be provided between Selby and York. However, the continuation of the shuttle service is likely to be prejudiced by clause 12. Having decided to keep open the line—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. While the hon. Gentleman has been speaking I have read and re-read clause 12, and it is difficult to find any reference to those railway lines. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to relate his remarks a little more closely to the Bill.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful for your tolerance thus far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The difficulty has always been, under our procedures, to debate such matters at all. It is a strange paradox that when a publicly owned industry, which is directly responsible to the Department of Transport—a Minister from that Department is replying to this debate—has a problem, one cannot talk about the problem until a solution to it is found under the umbrella of the Department of Transport.
The Minister will be aware of the depth of feeling in that part of the country about this matter. It would be wrong if shipowners could close this railway line simply because they have not paid adequate compensation to British Rail after their ships have caused the damage. I hope that the Minister can stay within the rules of procedure and find an adequate way of replying to my remarks. According to the Conservative Member of the European Parliament for Humberside, application has been made to the regional development fund for alternative financing so that the bridge can remain open. The House would be grateful if the Minister would agree to reconsider the problem.

Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) suggested that it might be possible for me to speak until 7 o'clock this evening, but I assure the House that on no account will I do so. I shall be brief.
I welcome the ingenuity of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, (Mr. Snape) in managing to get in a reference to British Rail in a debate on clause 12 of part II—entitled "Limitation tonnage"—which relates to the extension of British possessions overseas. The hon. Gentleman got away with it. I assure him that I do not intend to sail quite so close to the wind.

Mr. Snape: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in the long speech that he promised us, but if he reads clause 12, he will see that it relates to no such thing.

Mr. Colvin: I think that we are talking about different parts of the Bill. I am looking at clause 12 in page 9, but I stand corrected by the hon. Gentleman.
This Bill is welcome and is largely non-controversial, as 'one would expect of a Bill that enjoyed wide support beforehand and that had a smooth passage in the other place. It has the support of the seafarers' trade unions, the General Council of British Shipping Ltd. and, most importantly, the Health and Safety Executive. The Bill provides for the service of prohibition and improvement notices to assist the enforcement of merchant shipping legislation. I accept that that is necessary today, with ships becoming larger and often carrying dangerous cargoes of chemicals, or noxious or explosive gases. The dangers to crews are obvious, but sometimes we forget that there are, equally, dangers to those people ashore. My constituency houses Fawley refinery, where tankers call regularly, and it also faces Southampton, where, equally, dangers could arise. Hon. Members will recollect the tragedy of the accidental blowing up of the Betelgeuse in Shannon, Ireland, in January 1978, with the loss of 50 lives, and no one wishes a disaster like that to occur in the United Kingdom.
Unfortunately, this legislation comes at a time when the shipping industry worldwide is very depressed, and British tonnage is at a low and declining level. There have been several discussions about the analysis of our fleet, which is largely one of definition. Most people would wish more shipping to be registered under the United Kingdom flag. To encourage more shipowners to do so, it will be necessary to remove some of the more petty rules and regulations and perhaps to simplify those specifications for ships which are unnecessarily stringent, such as the width


of hatchways, the tolerances of metals, and the carrying of first-aid kits, and which merely put off the registration of ships under the British flag.
It is appropriate to pay tribute to my hon. Friend's predecessor at another Department, Mr. Iain Sproat, one of whose parliamentary campaigns in his last year of office was the removal of regulations to facilitate registration in Britain. We often hear quoted the example that it would have cost £750,000 to alter a ship so that it could be registered in Britain. The work would have taken six months, and the cost, in terms of cash and time, meant that it was not worth while for the foreign owner to register in Britain. We want a climate to encourage people to register in Britain, and thereby increase British flag tonnage. Perhaps when my hon. Friend replies he can assure us that nothing in this legislation will hinder registration in Britain.
Unfortunately, at present Britain is one of the least attractive countries in which to register ships. If we are to maintain our position as a leading, though declining, maritime nation, it is essential that it becomes more attractive, and we must maintain our position from an economic and military defence point of view. There are far too many Russian ships in British waters today. They can hold us to ransom not only militarily but commercially, so it is of vital national interest to increase the British flag.
I have three questions to ask the Minister. Part II of the Bill refers to the limitation tonnage, which is highly technical. The reasons for part II of the Bill are to bring us into line with our competitors overseas. That is important, but it is also vital that we are in line internationally on enforcement. As the House knows, there are plenty of cowboys around the world who are prepared to bend the rules—countries that may be not so enthusiastic about enforcement when it does not suit them. The House will no doubt like to draw a comparison with what would happen if British lorry drivers in this country were to behave as French lorry drivers are currently behaving in France. I suspect that they would all be in gaol by this time. I hope that the United Kingdom will not be out of line with its international competitors, and I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend on the question of enforcement.
My second question concerns the inspectorate, as set out in clause 7. I should like to know who the inspectors will be, from where they are likely to be recruited and what training they could expect to be given before becoming fully qualified.
My third question relates to compensation for prohibition notices served wrongly. I should like to know what happens in other countries. Can our shipowners expect the same treatment in other ports of call if they are inspected and wrongly detained? Can they expect to be paid compensation in the same way as shipowners in this country will be paid compensation for wrongful detention?
I hope that the Bill will have the same speedy and safe passage that we wish to those who go down to the sea in ships whom it is our duty to protect.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and I share constituencies which border on to the Solent. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome the measure, I hope that it will lead to greater safety in our waters, because we have had more

than our fair share of problems in both the Solent and the English Channel in recent years. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the parlous state of our Merchant Navy. I accept that it is imperative not to do anything to make life more difficult for the merchant fleet and those who own our ships who are greatly in need of any help that can be given. As a member of the Maritime League, I hope to play some small part in trying to revive the fortunes of our Merchant Navy to which the country owes so much and to which it will owe so much in future. If it is not there to step in and help the country, as it did during the Falklands crisis, God help the country.
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) on his great speech in defence of the Goole and Gilberdyke railway. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will win his battle. If I remember rightly, the bridge was closed completely at one time, and British Rail spent a considerable amount of money getting it back into operation. The Bill clearly makes inadequate provision for such compensation. I hope that, even at this late hour, saner counsels will prevail, and that that line will remain open.
I want to ask the Minister one question about the arbitrator. If this matter was dealt with in Committee, I aplogise for raising it again. Is there any way in which the arbitrator can invite assessors to help him in dealing with complicated and specialised subjects? I am aware of the preference of the National Union of Seamen for an industrial tribunal. The other union concerned has suggested the possibility of bringing in assessors. That suggestion appears sensible, although I accept that the arbitrator will be chosen to meet the requirements of the qualifications set out in page 5 of the Bill.
The General Council of British Shipping is satisfied with the contents of the Bill, but warns that compensation could be considerable in the event of a ship being delayed by a prohibition notice that was decided by an arbitrator to be unreasonable. It is hoped that such incidents will not occur, for the reasons I gave at the beginning of my speech. I recognise the current problems of those involved in the merchant fleet. I hope that the Bill, which is sensible and well-intentioned, will not exacerbate those problems.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): On Third Reading, a number of interesting points have been raised. It may be for the convenience of the House if I set them within the context of the Bill.
Part I of the Bill will improve the enforcement of merchant shipping legislation through the service of improvement and prohibition notices similar to those which may be served under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and other legislation.
An improvement notice can be served where an inspector is of the opinion that a person is contravening, has contravened or might contravene any of the relevant statutory provisions. The notice will require the contraventions to be remedied by a specific date, and can indicate the appropriate remedy.
A prohibition notice can be served on a person in charge of activities aboard ship related to one of the statutory provisions where the inspector is of the opinion that the activity, if carried out or continued, may involve a risk of serious personal injury, or serious pollution of navigable waters. I know that a number of hon. Members are


concerned about pollution of navigable waters. A prohibition notice directs that the activities should cease, or not be carried out. It may include advice on ways to avoid the risk.
Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiation between the inspector and the person on whom the notice is served before it takes effect are required to be referred to an appropriate qualified arbitrator. The arbitrator can confirm, amend or withdraw the notice. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) referred to the role of the arbitrator, and I shall return to the specific point that he raised.
An arbitrator is empowered to award compensation for the wrongful issue of a prohibition notice where the risk of injury or pollution would arise only if the ship went to sea, and where the effect of the direction in the notice was to prevent the departure of the ship, unless certain specified matters or contraventions were remedied.
It might be helpful if I were to say a little more about part II of the Bill. The House would not want me to enter into all the technicalities, but it may be helpful if I explain that part II of the Bill has a very limited objective. It deals with a technical problem that has arisen as a result of the entry into force last year of the new tonnage regulations, based on the 1969 tonnage measurement convention, and is necessary so that the United Kingdom may continue to comply with its existing international obligations under two international conventions to which it is party. That is important if the victims of maritime incidents are to receive full compensation under the existing regime. I shall respond later to what hon. Members said about changes in the regime.
In Committee I said that the United Kingdom had pressed other states in the International Maritime Organisation to ratify the 1976 limitation convention as soon as possible so that the higher limitation amounts that the convention provides may come into force in the near future. I shall explain later when that may be.
The new limitation amounts are set out in the Merchant Shipping Act 1979. When the four Nordic countries have ratified, as they are expected to do next month, only one further ratification will be required. The convention will then come into force. The 12-state criteria are the basis for international entry. Several other states are working on legislation. I hope that the entry into force conditions will be met this year.
More generally, the United Kingdom has been pressing in the International Maritime Organisation, the headquarters of which are in London, for more realistic limitation amounts when international conventions are revised and for them to be kept in line with inflation. The Government believe that that is the right approach, given the international character of shipping. That was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). It is important that progress on maritime law should continue to be made through international agreement rather than by unilateral action which could lead to general confusion and not be helpful to British shipping interests, or to others.
The Bahamas, France, Japan, Liberia, Spain, North Yemen and the United Kingdom have ratified or acceded to the 1976 convention. The United Kingdom implementing legislation for the 1976 limitation convention is contained in sections 17 to 19 and schedules 4 and 5 to the

Merchant Shipping Act 1979. The expected ratification by the four Nordic countries will mean that we are only one ratification away from the convention coming into force.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) mentioned the Goole bridge today, as he did in Committee. He asked about the implication of liability limitations on that swing bridge. The bridge has been damaged by ships colliding with it on a number of occasions. It has been said that British Rail's failure to get adequate compensation from shipowners to meet the cost of repairs and strengthening is a factor in the British Railways Board's decision to propose the withdrawal of the passenger service between Goole and Gilberdyke. The closure proposal is going through the statutory procedures. About 1,500 objections have been made to the Transport Users Consultative Council, which plans a public meeting to consider them and representations from elsewhere. Today was the closing date for the receipt of objections. I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has registered his objection with the TUCC, but he has certainly registered it in the House and in Committee.
The final decision whether to allow the closure is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He and I will take into account any relevant factors. Because of the quasi-judicial nature of the decision, it is inappropriate for me to say more about it, but I can help the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East further in a number of ways.
Mention has been made of the EEC grant towards possible bridge repairs. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently asking about the possibility of such a grant. By chance, my right hon. Friend wrote back yesterday, and explained that grants from the European development fund are designed to help to correct regional economic imbalances. They are normally only available for new work, though renewal schemes may qualify where there is a significant amount of technological improvement or where they make for more efficient operation.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman believes that it is possible to prove that a significant technological advance could be involved. In the normal way, such a grant would apply to the modernisation of railway signalling and moving technologically from old-fashioned signalling. Such a technological advance might succeed in attracting grant. I am not familiar with the case, but I doubt whether the bridge could be the subject of technological advance.

Mr. Snape: I am a recent traveller on the line. Old-fashioned semaphore signalling is used, so perhaps there is reason for a grant. Would it not be a technological advance to do what British Rail would like to do and replace the bridge, at a cost of £2 million, by one that is not liable to be damaged by passing ships? Would not that be covered by clause 12?

Mr. Mitchell: With respect, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East is in error in assuming that British Rail would like to replace the bridge. The hon. Gentleman may have other information, but I understand that British Rail has not made an investment proposal to replace the bridge. It would prefer to deal with the problem in a different way. It is not right for me to go further into the question of the appropriateness of its application for closure, but it is not


true that British Rail proposes a £2 million investment in the bridge or that I have prevented it from doing so. Its judgment is that that is not the way to proceed. Seeking EEC aid, therefore, presents difficulty.
In Committee, I said that the United Kingdom had been pressing other states in the International Maritime Organisation to ratify the 1976 limitation convention. The limitation amounts to which the hon. Gentleman referred are set out in the Merchant Shipping act 1979 which was introduced by the previous Labour Government. Therefore, I do not feel he is on strong ground in suggesting that it is inadequate.

Mr. Snape: We shall not get far if we start running back through history and looking at which political party introduced which Act. Does not limited liability for ships go back to an Act of Parliament of 1894? I am sure that that was not introduced by a Labour Government. I am complaining about the principle that the compensation payable as a result of damage depends on the tonnage of the ship that caused the damage. That, in 1984, is somewhat illogical. I hope that the Minister will agree that, regardless of who has done what in the past, liability should be looked at in the future.

Mr. Mitchell: I do not have a closed mind on that. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have to move within the terms of the international agreement. In the light of what he said, we shall consider whether in future discussions in the committee of the IMO we should consider further lifting the figure. A considerable lift will come when the new convention has been ratified by 12 states and thus brought into operation.
Under the existing regulations, compensation would be limited to about £48 per tonne of the vessel. At Goole that would mean that on a 1,000-tonne vessel—I understand that the maximum size of vessels coming up the river would be between 1,000 and 2,000 tonnes—there would now be a limitation of £48,000. When the IMO convention comes into force, that figure will go up by three or four times, so the amount of compensation will become considerable. The compensation for a small vessel of 500 tonnes, which at the moment would be about £25,000, after ratification would become about £120,000.
I am not claiming that the new limits are wholly adequate, that I stand on that and that is the end. However, they represent a significant step forward and we should take account of that. That bridge has been struck 19 times since 1974, and on 10 occasions it was more than superficially damaged. Clearly, if the new convention were in operation and the new amounts of money were forthcoming on vessels of the size about which we have talked, the funds to repair the bridge would be substantial were the Bill to be enacted. I hope that the Bill will be agreed to later this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, whose constituency marches beside mine, mentioned the complexity of regulations on transfer to the United Kingdom flag. I was delighted to hear the warm tribute that he paid to my predecessor, Mr. Iain Sproat, who clearly identified the need to help British shipping to become competitive. That is a view from which I do not dissent. My hon. friend referred to the need to bring to the minimum the cost of transfer to the United Kingdom flag. We have recently agreed with the Norwegians a harmonisation of the terms upon which transfer from one

flag to the other can take place, and which will make it considerably easier and less costly to transfer to the United Kingdom flag.
My hon. Friend sought the assurance that the Bill would not prevent that transfer, and I give him that assurance. He also referred to it being unattractive to transfer to the United Kingdom flag. However, some 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom flag is foreign owned. It is a flag of convenience to many other countries. It is attractive to nationals in deciding where and under whose flag to operate their fleets. The disadvantages of United Kingdom flags are not quite as many or as large as my hon. Friend feared. There are substantial tax advantages in free depreciation, which has an effect on the numbers who decide to operate under the United Kingdom flag. but that does not take away from the substance of the points made by my hon. Friend about the need to keep the regulations to the minimum. I agree with that, and it is something on which my Department keeps a watchful eye.
My hon. Friend also raised the problem of enforcement and referred to some of the substandard vessels that are to be seen around. United Kingdom operators are having to operate in the depths of the recession. There is substantial overcapacity in shipping, partly because of the recession, partly because of the use of larger vessels and more of them, and partly because of the strictly non-commercial shipbuilding practices encouraged in other countries. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need to ensure that other countries are not able to trade in substandard vessels, so creating, on top of what is already tough competition, unfair competition.
It is with that in mind that we have been re-examining our arrangements for the state control of inspection of vessels in United Kingdom ports. We are identifying more clearly than we have done before the vessels about whose history we know little, so that the deployment of our manpower and services on looking at vessels that need to have inspections to see that they are up to standard is more closely directed to those which have not been seen recently or those which, if they have been seen recently, have something wrong with them. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that we are making useful moves in port state control, about which he has asked, to ensure that substandard tonnage is not unfairly competing with our own.
My hon. Friend asked me whether the Bill will apply to other countries in the United Kingdom. Yes, it will. There is no difference, and they will be treated alike. That is within the limitation of international law, which binds us all in this respect.

Mr. Colvin: My question was also directed towards finding out about other countries with similar legislation such as that proposed in the Bill. For instance, if a British shipowner has his ship inspected in a foreign port and is wrongly detained, could he, under the present legislation overseas, expect compensation following arbitration? That is one of the provisions in this measure. However, will our shipowners get the same treatment when they call at overseas ports?

Mr. Mitchell: No, I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are, of course, constrained by what we can get consensus and international agreement on. Vessels in our ports, under whatever flag, are treated alike.
I was asked about the protection of the safety or health of seafarers on foreign flag ships. In this respect, ILO


convention 147 permits coastal states to protect the safety and health of seafarers on foreign flag vessels, and a prohibition notice could be issued in the event of serious personal injury. I hope that that further assurance will be acceptable to my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight, with considerable versatility, having been on his feet in the House last night on the subject of aircraft noise, asked whether an arbitrator could bring in an assessor if he wished to do so. He can do that. It is a matter for his judgment. He is the person best qualified to know whether there are factors beyond his ken and whether he should therefore arm himself with additional advice.
I think that I have covered all the matters that have been raised. On the basis of what I have said, and in view of the reassurance that I have given in this brief debate, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — Wine Production

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am still a fairly new Member, and I am not entirely familiar with the procedures of the House, but when we have a busy Session ahead of us, and when we on the Liberal-Social Democratic Alliance Benches have a restricted amount of time available in which to discuss matters of policy under the Supply day debates allocated to Members on these Benches, is it not in order, if the business of the day collapses and the Government are not in control of their own destinies to the extent that we reach the Adjournment debate at 5.52 pm, for the Leader of the House to explain to us why his business has collapsed and why we are adopting this unique procedure? It is certainly new to me.

Mr. John Golding: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For once, I shall not be critical of the Government. The business has collapsed because Members are not here to speak on the subject. I do not believe that the Adjournment debate and the one that will follow are matters of no importance. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) would do better to take seriously the subject of the first Adjournment, and also the subject of the second Adjournment. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will tell him to take the business of the House seriously for once.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), because he has helped me to help the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). It is not entirely unknown for the business of the House to finish early. When it does, it is possible for hon. Members to put in for further Adjournment debates. In fact, that has already happened. We are now on the Adjournment.

Mr. Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very difficult for young new Members of the House—[Interruption.] I defer to the greater experience of hon. Members around me, but is it not right that the Leader of the House should come here and explain exactly what is happening? The Standing Orders of the House are not clear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman started by raising a serious point of procedure, which I tried to explain to him. He is now getting into a political argument, and we are now cutting into the time of the Adjournment, which has started.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have before me "Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice". I do not expect new young Members to have read this book within the space of a fortnight, but the election took place on 9 June. Now we have the appalling spectacle of the Liberal candidate in Chesterfield, who is not prepared to debate with the candidates there—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think it is time that we got on to the Adjournment debate. For the third time—[interruption]—for the third time, I call Mr. Anthony Steen.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely Back-Bench Members have some rights, and it is time they were protected. Everybody knows what has been going on between the two Front Benches. They have been trying to ensure that the Adjournment debate took place at 5.55 pm and the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has rushed here from somewhere outside the House to take it on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will not get into political arguments. I was asked a perfectly reasonable question, which I have tried to answer. We are now on the Adjournment, which has been moved, and I call the hon. Member who has the Adjournment. We have private business to consider at seven o'clock. There is already a second Adjournment debate, which has been applied for and accepted by Mr. Speaker. If there is time, we shall come on to that. If there is further time, and further Adjournment debates are put in for and accepted by Mr. Speaker's Office, we shall be able to take them. However, it is not in order to argue these points at the present moment.

Mr. Golding: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you not realise that this is the alliance "Discredit the Speaker and the Chair Day"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Steen.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I want to correct the suggestion that I have been brought in from anywhere. As the House knows, I virtually live in this place, day and night. It was merely a side step that brought me into the Chamber, and I am glad that I am so well prepared to cope with this debate at a much earlier hour than we originally expected.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my hon. Friend give way, although I accept that he has only just started his speech?

Mr. Steen: Yes.

Mr. Colvin: I accept what my hon. Friend has just said about taking a side step into the Chamber. It is significant that 50 per cent. of the Members on the Liberal-Social Democratic alliance Benches have just taken a side step out of the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall debate English wine.

Mr. Colvin: This is an important matter. It is not something frivolous. Is it not true that there is no such thing as English claret? Is it not, therefore, an appropriate moment for members of the alliance to leave the Chamber, write speeches, and come back and take a constructive part in this debate?

Mr. Steen: I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. This is an important debate about a serious matter, and I shall be glad to touch on the problem of English claret in the course of my speech. If my hon. Friend is here, he will hear what I say, but if he is not he can read later what I say.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Steen: I shall not give way, because I have hardly started.
May I say, first, that the Queen drinks English wine. Mr. Speaker serves it, the House of Commons stocks it and the Lord Mayor's banquet was flush with it this year. Thousands of people throughout the world enjoy English wine. Hon. Members will be amazed to learn that this year 2 million bottles of it will be produced. I speak, of course, about English wine produced from fresh grapes grown here on English soil.
In order to let hon. Members settle down, it might be as well at the outset to give the House an opportunity to realise what we are debating by drawing attention to the House of Commons' Members' wine list. Nos. 74 and 85 boast nine bottles of English wine. We must give credit to the far-sightedness and wisdom of the Catering Department, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving), whose wines come from Adgestone, which, as you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is in the Isle of Wight—

Mr. Golding: rose—

Mr. Steen: May I finish the argument? Then I shall gladly give way.
There is a wine from the Hascombe vineyard in Surrey; the Wootton vineyard in Somerset which is managed by Major Gillespie, the chairman of the English Vineyards Association; Lamberhurst Priory, which is master-minded by Kenneth McAlpine, the secretary of the English Vineyards Association; and a range of other wines — Staple St. James; Three Choirs, a famous wine; and a wine from the Biddenden vineyard and the Carr Taylor vineyard.

Mr. Golding: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Steen: Having just run through the wine list, may I say, Mr. Speaker, how delighted I am to see you in the Chair because all hon. Members know how much you enjoy a glass of English wine.

Mr. Golding: Is this not blatant advertising of the most unacceptable kind? The hon. Gentleman has listed all the vineyards and named their proprietors. He has called Mr. Speaker in aid of the production and sale of alcohol. Is that not disgraceful?

Mr. Steen: It is not disgraceful, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is a robust and fervent supporter of this English beverage, and I know of his great enthusiasm for this alcoholic drink.

Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman realises that my remarks were intended to reduce the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, not to increase them.

Mr. Steen: I am sure that the House will note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
The House of Commons Members' wine list boasts a fair cross-section of English wines across the country and it has a range of vintages. If that is compared with the other wines on the list— French red or white, Yugoslavian and Italian wines — English wine has a distinct advantage. I congratulate the Catering Committee and its Chairman on their foresight and wisdom.
The debate is about English wine produced from fresh grapes grown in English soil. It is as well to remember that


vineyards have existed in Britain for over 2,000 years. The grape is one of the oldest agricultural products. The Romans grew a fine grape many thousands of years ago. In the past three years there has been a massive development in the production of English wine. The House will be interested to know that in the past three years there has been a fourfold increase in production. In 1981–82 only half a million bottles of English white wine were produced. In 1982–83 1 million bottles were produced and this year it is expected that 2 million bottles will be produced. It is worth noting that primarily white wine is produced in Britain, although later I shall talk about an enterprising young man from my constituency who is going in for the production of red wine. That should be an interesting development.
The debate is about the important problems facing English vineyards. It is as well at the outset to distinguish English wine from British wine, which is an entirely different product. British wine is imported into Britain as a concentrate, must, or syrup. It is imported from the EC —Italy, Greece and France—and is often the worst end of their wine, and from the South American countries Argentina and Chile. The only thing that is British about British wine is the water that dilutes the syrup and the people who put it in the bottle. It is as well for the House to understand that there is this distinction between English wine that comes from fresh grapes and British wine that comes from must, concentrate or syrup.

Mr. Golding: rose—

Mr. Steen: I shall give way in a moment. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in this subject.
For the record, may I give the Shorter Oxford Dictionary's definition of "syrup"? It says that it is
a thick sweet liquid; especially one consisting of a concentrated solution of sugar in water.
It describes "must" as
a new wine, grape juice before fermentation is complete.
It defines "concentrate" as
raising the strength of liquid by removing water".
We should have those definitions in mind when we consider what we are importing.

Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman is contrasting English wine with British wine but in what category are Welsh and Cornish wines, and Scottish wines produced from grapes grown over the northern remit of the vine in Britain? The hon. Gentleman talks about British wine being a concentrate diluted by British water. Does that mean only English water or does that mean British water?

Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, although I am surprised that he should speak of Scottish wine. I should have thought that the House would have realised that the bulk of the vineyards in Britain are in the east and south-east; frosts can destroy vines within moments. No serious farmer in Scotland would readily embark on creating a vineyard. In Wales, on the other hand, there are two vineyards, though I cannot tell the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) what sort of liquid they produce.
As an honorary adviser to the English Vineyards Association, I must say that I have tasted a great number of wines and that some of them have been barely drinkable. I would not wish to comment on Welsh wines,

but I have a note about a Welsh vineyard called Croffta —one might think that the name was more suited to Scotland — which is made not far from Cardiff and, according to my map, is situated in the mountains.
The map gives the details of vineyards in the United Kingdom and shows another Welsh vineyard called Werndêg, not far from the Prescelly mountains. I am not sure whether there is any relevance in that or in the fact that on the map the vineyard is marked over a prehistoric monument. However, that may have no bearing on the quality of the wine.

Mr. Golding: I thank the hon. Gentleman for including Wales. Is he aware that I am strongly advised that the poet Robert Burns wrote about Scottish wines? Is he further aware that Burns was more recent than the Romans?

Mr. Steen: The House will have noted that point with interest. Robert Burns may have been using the word "wine" in the generic sense to include cider.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the vexed question of Welsh wine there can be a great deal of deception? I purchased a bottle of Welsh wine in a village in Pembrokeshire called Newport and, as one might have expected, the label was written in Welsh. When, to find out what I was going to drink, I had the label translated, I was informed that it said "Wines from different EEC countries." Does he agree that that is gross deception and does not help Welsh wine?

Mr. Steen: I am grateful for that intervention from my hon. Friend, who is a next-door neighbour of mine, not just on this Bench but in Devon. Although we are taking our time to get warmed up in the debate and are enjoying the odd joke, my hon. Friend has stumbled, probably unwittingly, on an important point because he is talking about the total confusion in his mind and in the minds of many others.

Mr. Nicholls: I had the words on the label translated.

Mr. Steen: The confusion in his mind was that he was drinking Welsh wine. In fact, he was drinking wine must or syrup imported from Germany, Italy or Greece, diluted with Welsh water.

Mr. Golding: Did not the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) say that he had the label translated before drinking the contents of the bottle?

Mr. Steen: He nearly drank it. He believed that he would be drinking Welsh wine.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) is taking his time over this because he has time to take; the mind boggles as to what he would have done if he had had only the traditional half hour for the Adjournment.

Mr. Steen: I should not be giving way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend said earlier that must or concentrated grape juice was imported from various areas, and he mentioned Chile and Argentina. I wish to declare an interest, as the parliamentary adviser to the National Association of British Wine Producers—

Mr. Golding: Now we know.

Mr. Dykes: It is in the Register of Members' Interests.
This is a noble profession and a noble industry. It provides much employment in Britain and represents 22


per cent. of total non-spirit sales in this country. I checked with that association this morning and I am assured—the association's authority is all I have to go on—that, unless it is mistaken, no concentrated grape juice is currently imported from Argentina or Chile. I suggest, therefore, that my hon. Friend has thrown that in as an emotional element to try to curry favour with certain Labour Members for his case on the English wine industry.
We all greatly admire the development of the English wine industry, wish it well in the future and hope to see a significant expansion. However, does my hon. Friend agree that it will always remain a fairly small industry, because of our climatic problems, and that it is not to be compared with British wines, in that they are generically two different kinds of drink?

Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we be reminded whose Adjournment debate this is?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has given way a great deal. Perhaps we can now hear the debate.

Mr. Steen: In view of that comment, Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from giving way further to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme because it is clear that his interventions are spoiling the flow of the argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) made several important points. It is important for the House to remember that British wine is easily confused in that it is produced by bringing concentrated must or syrup to this country. I have it on good advice that if Chilean or Argentine syrup is not now coming to Britain, it was; it may have been delayed because of events in that part of the world. That is what I have been advised and I have heard nothing to make me change my view.
The problem with all the federations and associations is that not all vineyards and manufacturers are members of them. There may be bottlers getting syrup from South America, adding the water of the area and selling the resultant bottles of wine. I shall be coming to that shortly, and I was grateful for the helpful intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East.

Mr. Dykes: rose—

Mr. Steen: I shall not give way again. I am sure that there will be ample opportunity for my hon. Friend to make his own speech.
A big problem for English wine is the deliberate misrepresentation of bottle names by the British wine producers, and in that I include the design and wording of the labels. It is a clear case of deception and misrepresentation.
Consider, for example, the British wine selling under the trade name "Rougemont Castle". That castle is in Exeter. My research team has been hard at work and has found that it is not a ruin but is used as a law court. The castle is featured on the label of British wine that is made in Exeter under that banner. There is a picture of Rougemont castle on the label with bunches of grapes around it. I have never seen law courts with bunches of grapes around them, and I have certainly never seen a castle so bedecked.

Mr. Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman permit me to intervene?

Mr. Steen: Shortly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will permit us to hear the debate.

Mr. Steen: What has an Exeter castle got to do with syrup imported from EEC countries or from the South Americas?

Mr. Dykes: I am sorry to intervene again. My hon. Friend just said that he agrees with me that much is not coming from South America, but perhaps it was. He has now repeated that the wine is emanating from South America. Surely that is incorrect. On good authority, my evidence is that there are no imports of concentrated grape juice from South America, especially those two rather controversial countries. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean to mislead the House and the public in his broadcast this morning on the BBC programme "Today" to which there is apparently no right of reply and no proper explanation can be made.
I have checked this matter with the industry. The bottom of the labels of Rougemont Castle wine clearly state:
Wines made from imported grape juice
or words to that effect. Those labels do not mislead. All sorts of names for beverages, romantic or otherwise, do not mislead the public.

Mr. Steen: I shall deal with that point shortly. I hope the House will bear with me, because I have been fair in allowing hon. Members from both sides of the House to intervene, which has disrupted my argument somewhat.
My view is that there is gross misrepresentation on a wine label featuring a Norman castle, standing alone, with grapes on it. The immediate response of a person picking up a bottle whose label included a picture of a castle, grapes and the name Rougemont Castle would be that the wine was made or produced in Exeter or around that castle.

Mr. Golding: rose—

Mr. Steen: I shall not give way. The label of one wine, Belgrove, gives the impression of a English stately home, and a horse and carriage are shown running in front. That is clearly aimed at giving the impression that the wine comes from an English country house. Why do that, unless one presumes that it is the stuff drunk by people living in English country houses or that it comes from the English country house? What has that to do with imported concentrate from Greece, Germany or France?
Carrow Prior is bottled by the mustard people, Colmans, at Norwich. The label shows an attractive Elizabethan house—I have come armed with the label—and underneath "Carrow Prior" is written:
Carrow Prior was a Benedictine Foundation started in the 12th century at the Carrow, Norwich. Although only ruins of this medieval period remain, part of the present house dates from the early sixteenth century. Today, Carrow Priory is produced on the same site as this historic Norwich landmark.
What have that information and the Elizabethan house to do with imported syrup from France or Germany?
On the face of it, those labels are a misrepresentation. They are disturbing because they are put on bottles with the sole aim of misleading the public into thinking they are drinking something else. The conclusion, therefore. is that the pictures and the wording are designed to deceive. The manufacturers are attempting to misrepresent the area from which their product comes.
The conclusion is reinforced — I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East is in the


Chamber—by the other brand names of British wines, which are less successful, such as Concord and Cabaret, because few people will buy wine with such names. I am told that those wines are less successful than wines such as Carrow Priory, which has a sense of antiquity about it, Rougemont Castel or Belgrove. Those labels are designed specifically to mislead the public.
For four years I have repeatedly drawn this misrepresentation to the attention of successive Ministers responsible for consumer affairs and agriculture and the Office of Fair Trading. There has been a comparative lack of interest. The letters I have received are of considerable interest. One letter from a Minister makes it plain that he feels he cannot do more than take an interest. He cannot change the law or persuade British manufacturers to change their policies.
In 1981 the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker). He wrote a number of letters to the English Vineyards Association and raised these matters with various Ministers in other Departments, but to little avail. In 1983 the Minster for Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend who is now the Member for Reading East (Sir. G. Vaughan), took this matter up. His letter to me of 15 March 1983 said:
I promised to consult Peter Walker, Jock Bruce-Gardyne and Gordon Borrie on the points you raised at our meeting last December on behalf of the English Vineyards Association. You have already received a copy of Jock Bruce-Gardyne's letter on the duty rates on English wine.
On the question of confusing labelling, it seems that following your meeting with Peter Walker in late 1981 it was suggested to the NABWP"—
I imagine that that is the professional association in which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East mentioned his interest—
that the issue shall be put beyond reasonable doubt by the addition of further information on their labels to show that their product was made from imported materials. As you know the NABWP adopted this suggestion by requiring their members under the new Code of Practice to include on their labels the phrase 'made from imported grape juice' or an appropriate equivalent. I know that the EVA do not regard this as sufficient. But it is Peter Walker's view, and I am inclined to agree, that given an indication of this sort the risk of confusion between the two products is slight. However, Gordon Borrie"—
of the Office of Fair Trading—
has proposed that there should be joint discussions between MAFF, the OFT and NABWP to further clarify the Codes labelling recommendations to ensure there is no question of misleading the public about the ingredients of British wine. As you know it is our aim to improve trading standards by the development of sensible voluntary codes of practice and with the help of Gordon Borrie's Office, I see no reason why a satisfactory solution should not be arrived at this way.
But, as I said before, it is MAFF as the Department responsible for the implementation of the EEC Wine Regulations which is the lead Department on this.
It is gratifying to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in her place and listening so attentively to the debate. It is clear that she will want to participate in due course and reply to the various issues that are raised.
The English Vineyards Association does not believe that the wording on the labels negatives the pictures and the names of the wine except for the very sophisticated.
The second problem is the failure of British wine manufacturers to state in large enough type, or perhaps at

all on some labels, although I have not seen labels that do not bear the wording, that the content of the bottle comes from abroad in the form of syrup and concentrate and not from Britain.
Conveniently, I have another label in my pocket. Part of it reads:
Produced from imported grape concentrate".
That is fairly sound, but some labels state that the contents have been produced from imported grape juice. I believe that that is stated on the Marks and Spencer bottle, which bears a label which contains a pretty picture which suggests that the wine comes from somewhere such as the Cotswolds. Certain pictures and names are designed clearly to mislead unless the customer reads the fine print.
It is the view of the English Vineyards Association that the voluntary agreement has not been properly honoured. It has done little to correct the impression that is derived from the name and the picture. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that she will put that right by advising British wine growers that the label must state the country of origin, as I believe the Marks and Spencer bottle does. It states that the wine comes from Germany, which is the right way to proceed. The label should state the country of origin clearly and the fact that the wine is made from concentrate, must or syrup. That information should be in print as bold as the wording that sets out the name of the vineyard.
Carrow Prior is in massive letters, and that is followed by the information that it is medium dry British wine. Perhaps Labour Members can read that even though they are sitting on the other side of the Chamber. Under that information, and in small black type of the same size as that which is used to tell us that the product is produced by Colmans in Norwich, is the phrase:
Produced from imported grape concentrate.
If you walked into an off licence, Mr. Speaker, which, with the greatest respect, I know you may not do, and saw the attractive label that is used for Carrow Prior wine and noted the Elizabethan—

Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it permitted to bring exhibits into the Chamber? I always thought that it was not permissible to bring them into the Chamber to use them as the hon. Gentleman has done. I should like a ruling, Mr. Speaker, because there have been occasions when I would have wished to bring a telephone kiosk into the Chamber. We have our rules, and I understand that it was inadmissible to bring exhibits into the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: It is not permissible to bring dangerous exhibits into the Chamber. I do not think that the items which the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has brought with him can be described as dangerous.

Mr. Steen: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was advised that it would be inappropriate to bring a collection of English and British wines into the Chamber with a few glasses. I was therefore constrained, even though it would have been a suitable hour to bring in a bottle and a glass. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber would have enjoyed tasting the difference between British wine that is produced from syrup, and the real stuff that is produced from fresh grapes. I did not think that it would be dangerous to do so, but I thought that it might have an effect on the quality of the debate.
I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to ensure that the lettering on the labels is as large and as


prominent as it should be so that it can be read by ordinary men and women who are not necessarily as discerning or sophisticated as hon. Members may be. If that is done, they will be able to learn that the products that are retailing in supermarkets and off licences for about half the price of real English wine are wines which have been imported in the form of a syrup or must, diluted with English water, put into the botle and adorned with a fancy label. I am not criticising the products that have been produced from a concentrate or syrup. On the contrary, I know that many find it extremely tasty. For example, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East is partial to British wine. I am not criticising him for enjoying that beverage.

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether it is in order to make such a suggestion. I am not disagreeing that British wines are excellent beverages, but it might be thought that I consume an excessive amount of them as opposed to other wines. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to give that impression.

Mr. Speaker: Points of order must be matters on which I can rule. I could not possibly rule on the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I think that the happiest thing will be for the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) to get on with his speech.

Mr. Steen: I am doing my best to do so, Mr. Speaker, but I am severely constrained by interventions, including one of guilt, perhaps, from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East, who wants to ensure that none of his constituents feels that he is indulging in something which we all know he is not. The House will be grateful to British manufacturers for at least putting some note on the label. That was great progress, but I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is not sufficient. It is not clear enough and something better should be done so that the public can readily see what they are drinking and what they are not.
I say that the print on the labels to which I have been referring is a fundamental misrepresentation. I know that hon. Members will have taken note of that and will wish to put matters right.

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order if it is a point of order. However, it is not fair to try to intervene in the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for South Hams by raising points of order.

Mr. Dykes: I apologise for intervening yet again, Mr. Speaker, but I think that I have a genuine point of order. To say that something is a "fundamental misrepresentation" is to make a most serious charge. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain his reasons for doing so. To make such a charge is different from saying that the labelling should be better or that the printing should be clearer. The implication of my hon. Friend's charge is that there is deliberate intent to mislead the public. That is a serious accusation which is not borne out by the facts. All the labels have the importation subscriptions on the bottom.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised a fair point, with which the hon. Member for South Hams can deal during his speech. He was not using the phrase "fundamental misrepresentation" while referring to another Member.

Mr. Steen: As I have said, British manufacturers have taken the first step. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister

will tell us that she will lean on them a little harder, and I hope, also, that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East will take note of what is said. The English Vineyards Association is upset that so little has been done and it feels that something better should be done.
The third problem is perhaps the most serious one The Government give advantageous duty arrangements to imported concentrate. That is the result of a historical anomaly that is known as empire preference. That preference initially helped the Cypriot wine trade when Cyprus was part of the empire. Today it is not, but empire preference continues to be given. It is given to all concentrates and syrups that are imported, whether from South America or Europe. If there are French, German or Greek syrups which are surplus to requirements, those syrups can be imported — the same applies to concentrates — to Britain, and the EEC will give a subsidy to the bottler or importer. Empire preference is given to all imported concentrates.
I wonder what South America has to do with the British empire. The Parliamentary Secretary may ask herself that, if must is still imported from South America. Why should imported concentrate pay less duty than the English counterpart? The duty on British imported must or concentrate is 42 per cent. less per bottle than on English wine. To add insult to injury, if the concentrate comes from an EEC country the bottler is eligible for yet another subsidy—for an EEC handout. That is discrimination in favour of foreign products. If the product comes from the EEC, there is double discrimination. There is empire preference — and why should Germany, France and Greece have empire preference? —and there is also the EEC subsidy. I wonder how the Minister will get out of that.
The Parliamentary Secretary should start a process of harmonisation. She should put English wine on a par with British wine, in terms of duty. If we are to give preferential treatment through the EEC to European concentrate, will the Minister make sure that some similar support is given to our hard-pressed, unsupported English wine industry?
Those who choose to import syrup from Germany or France and add water to it receive empire preference—that is an advantage of 42 per cent. in duty over the English counterpart—and the EEC subsidy for bottling it. That is clearly discrimination in favour of the British wine. I do not suggest for a moment that the British wine should lose. I say that the English wine should benefit from the same advantage.

Mr. Colvin: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. He referred to harmonisation, and when we hear that word in an EEC context a red danger signal flashes. Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent ruling by the European Court suggesting greater harmonisation of the duty on beer and on wine? The suggestion is that, in the cause of greater equity, the duty on beer should be increased by 7p, or the duty on wine should fall by 24p. Will my hon. Friend undertake to join, today, the campaign for a reduction in the duty on wine? That would help his campaign, but would not in any way harm the beer drinker. Bearing in mind that just as he—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman is almost making a speech.

Mr. Colvin: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I may make one final point. My hon. Friend supports the manufacture of English wine. Let us not forget that beer is 100 per cent. British.

Mr. Steen: I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. He made an important point. It draws attention for the need for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Budget which is soon to be unveiled to the House, to consider the question of duties on beers and wines. I am always happy to join a campaign, particularly if it will help the hard-pressed English wine industry.
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East is not with us. Perhaps he has nipped out for a glass of English wine.
The empire subsidy, in terms of syrup from Germany, is a contradiction in terms. My suggestion is that the Minister should give the same advantages to English wine growers. She should not increase the duty paid by British wine growers, but should attempt to bring down the duty paid on English wine. That must be the right approach.
The Government have for some years been financing half a worker at the Long Ashton research station, where research is carried out into English wine and cider. On 8 February 1982 I tabled a series of questions about the Long Ashton research station. I put the questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who apparently is the Minister responsible. My concern was that the number of staff in the pomology division of the research station might be cut. I then represented the Wavertree district of Liverpool, where there are not many vineyards.
I asked the Secretary of State what the present staff establishment was in various categories. I asked him
how many staff are currently employed in the food and beverage division … how many staff are currently employed in the pomology division … how many staff are currently employed in the ciderhouse section
and finally,
how many staff are currently employed in the home food science section"?
The answer was interesting. It referred to
The staff establishment by categories at Long Ashton research station as at 1 December 1981 (excluding a small number of appointments sponsored by the private sector)".
Apparently there are 149·5 members of staff in the scientifc section, 39·5 other non-industrials, 10 skilled craftsmen, 34·5 semi-skilled craftsmen, half an unskilled worker and 25·5 administrative staff. At that date the total complement was 258·5. There were 33 members of staff in the food and beverage division, 32 in the pomology division, 5·5 in the ciderhouse section and 7·5 in the home food science section.
The Minister continued:
The function of the ciderhouse section is to provide practical advice on cider-processing techniques and equipment, and to produce cider for experimental purposes (the surplus being sold)."
The crunch line was:
The future of the pomology division and the food and beverage division … is at present under consideration by the Agricultural Research Council, in consultation with interested bodies. Any decision which may be taken following those consultations, will be matters for the council, acting under the terms of their Royal Charter."—[Official Report, 8 February 1982; Vol. 17, c. 295–96.]
At the time, as well as looking at apples, the pomology department was managing to take a little look at grapes. It was helping the English Vineyards Association with

experimental grapes and the problems associated with them. That was an important task. Our climate gives the English vineyards a tough time.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House, and especially my right hon. and hon. Friends who have attended this important debate, that the Government have no plan to axe the pomology department or in any way to reduce the number of staff involved in experimental work in connection with English vineyards.

Mr. Tim Renton: Can my right hon. Friend tell us where the dreadful word "pomology" comes from? I have never heard it before. There is a good old English word, "apple". Why should we use a word which appears to be a hybrid of the French word "pomme" and the Greek word "logos"? It is bad enough that Golden Delicious apples should be taking over our domestic market, but that the French language should take over the terms used in this place is a matter for great regret.

Mr. Steen: I am not equipped to deal with the terminology of pomology. When my hon. Friend and I first came to the House we noticed that the menu in the Members' Dining Room was written in French. Many places write their menus in French in the belief that that improves the food. Perhaps the Long Ashton research station feels that the relevant department's work is put up market by calling it the pomology department. I cannot give my hon. Friend any more assistance.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: May I suggest one way in which the Government can help the English wine industry? They could follow my example. As a Minister in two Departments, I ensured that hospitality in my office involved only English wine. There was no French or German wine and no spirits. Perhaps my hon. Friend will commend that action to the Minister.

Mr. Steen: I am most grateful for that illuminating information. We do not normally hear what goes on behind the closed cocktail doors of Ministers. Mr. Speaker is known to enjoy a glass of this beverage. The Queen also enjoys a glass at state banquets. It is highly popular. I should like more hon. Members to enjoy it.

Mr. Golding: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not bring the tastes of Mr. Speaker or any other occupant of the Chair into the debate.

Mr. Steen: That was just a throwaway line.

Mr. Golding: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may have been a throwaway line, but it has been thrown away at least 12 times during the debate. The hon. Gentleman should be rebuked for constantly bringing in the Chair in a blatant advertising campaign.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. We are rapidly approaching the hour when we shall move on to other business.

Mr. Steen: I was not suggesting that Mr. Speaker did anything other than present the beverage to his guests. I would not wish for a moment to advertise that fact or to draw attention to it.
I should like to draw attention to two interesting experiments in my constituency. Farmers in south Devon, who face all manner of pressures, are taking to experimentation with vines. I should like to draw attention


to the Dittisham fruit farm which is called the Ditsome fruit farm by those who know how to pronounce it. It produces a fine sparkling white wine from the Capton vineyard. Even on the hills of south Devon around Dartmouth farmers have managed to produce for the second year a perfectly drinkable and likeable white wine. It is therefore possible to produce wine as far west as the west country where it is extremely wet.
The second experiment in my constituency involves claret. One of my hon. Friends mentioned English claret. It was not a Social Democratic Member, none of whom is here. A most interesting experiment is being conducted at Beenleigh manor at Harbertonford near Totnes. Mr. Andrew Wilson-Gough wrote to me a letter dated 13 September 1983. He told me that he hopes to plant several acres with red grapes this year. That is most unusual. I shall watch the experiment with interest and I hope to taste the results. His anxiety when he wrote to me concerned the levels of duty. He has a substantial interest in cider but he may have thought twice about going into wine production because of what is regarded as discrimination against English wine.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend has just made an important point. He will remember that claret was always the drink of the Scots and that port was the drink of the English. He will remember the famous poem which runs:
Tall and erect the Caledonian stood, Old was his claret and his mutton good. 'Drink this port', the English statesman cried, He drank the vile stuff and his spirit died.
Claret, which is a French word like pomology, derives from the French words clair and et. There are many good vineyards in Sussex, some of which are in my constituency. The fact that claret is now being produced in my hon. Friend's constituency shows that the tradition of centuries that I have described is being changed. That is important.

Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend is always of great interest when he intervenes, especially when he recites poetry. The House was pleased to hear his contribution. It is worth noting that there are some fine vineyards in Sussex, especially east Sussex. There is Horam manor, Little Pook hill, Brede and many others.

Mr. Nicholls: Is my hon. Friend aware that good vineyards are to be found in my constituency, which neighbours his? The Whitstone vineyard in my

constituency is excellent. Is my hon. Friend aware that his constituency has no monopoly of vineyards in the west country?

Mr. Steen: I would not suggest for a moment that my constituency has a monopoly of vineyards. I should certainly like an invitation from my hon. Friend to visit the vineyards in his constituency.
I should like to describe the absurd circumstances that face 200 English vineyards. As in France and Germany, English vineyards want to show off their produce. They run charabanc tours to vineyards. French, German, and Danish tourists pour in and want to enjoy a glass of wine after they have been shown round the vineyard. The vineyards want to help tourism and generate local employment. However, the man from the Treasury prevents even one glass of wine being offered to visitors unless the vineyard has applied for and been granted an on licence. In those circumstances, glasses of wine may be sold during public house hours. Should tourists be so unwise as to visit a vineyard out of licensing hours, they have to rest content with buying a bottle from the vineyard's off licence premises, assuming, that is, that the vineyard has applied for and been granted an off licence. Therefore, vineyards need a room or building for an on licence and a building or room for an off licence. That is not all. If the tourists miss the licensing hours, they cannot drink a glass of wine on the premises but must go to the off licence room, buy a bottle of wine and consume it off the premises. To do that, they have to go into the premises of a third person, who provides them with a corkscrew and glass, in order to taste the product of the premises of the vineyard owner.
Tourists who wish to sample a bottle of wine in off licence hours have to buy it and take it off the premises. If tourists want to taste a glass of wine during public house hours, they can do so, but if they wish to taste a glass of wine out of public house hours they must buy an off licence bottle and go to a hut or room belonging to a neighbouring farmer, taking a corkscrew and a glass with them.

Mr. Golding: How would the hon. Member define a bona fide tourist—

It being Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I have selected the Instruction, which may be discussed with the motion for Second Reading.

7 pm

Mr. Derek Conway: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is my privilege to represent the beautiful medieval town of Shrewsbury, which is situated in my constituency of Shrewsbury and Atcham. Some hon. Members may not know that Shrewsbury is situated within a loop of the river Severn. That is a rather difficult geographical position not uncommon to towns of such an age. Within that loop, 84 per cent. of the buildings are listed as being of historical and architectural interest. Shrewsbury is not only a historic and beautiful town, but suffers from many traffic problems, caused by its architecture. The town is listed among the 14 priority towns of special historic interest.
The Bill has already been discussed in the other place. The need for the Bill is mainly set out in parts II and III. Part II deals with the erection of a car park and the need to build a bridge across the river Severn for access to it, which is opposed in principle. Part III covers proposals for the ancient 16th-century market square in the centre of the town, which are also being opposed, but for a less obvious reason.
The town's traffic problems are apparent to any visitor, but especially to the people who live there. There are many advantages in living in such a beautiful area, but a disadvantage is that if one arrives at the eastern side of the town to go on a shopping expedition there is a car parking problem. It is recognised by most of the town's residents. There are effective car parks to the north-west and the south, but not to the east. That gap unquestionably needs to be filled and the Bill would allow that to be done.
The history of the Bill, and the deliberations over the car park, have been long and tortuous. There have been public discussions for nine or ten years about the form of that car park and its location. Eventually, the borough council, with all-party support from the Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties—the Conservative party is in control of the council—recognised the need to build a car park in that location. The council has the support of the Shropshire county council.
It is evident from the Order Paper that the provision is opposed by Shrewsbury town football club. I understand why it should wish to oppose the Bill, as, unquestionably, its land will be affected. I do not blame the directors of Shrewsbury football club for defending their interests, but I believe that the wider interests of the Shropshire community should be taken into account. If the Bill eventually becomes a statute, the enclosures within the Bill will not prevent the successful continuation of the football club, of which we are all in favour. The club is of major importance to the town, and no one wishes to see its operation hindered. After careful scrutiny of the Bill, I do not believe that that would happen because of it.
It must be placed on record that, while the Bill is being opposed by Shrewsbury town football club, and many hon.

Members, the main cause of the objection has been the recently created practice ground. The football club and a property developer agreed to build a car park and supermarket on the practice ground, in a former incarnation of the car park proposals. I do not blame the club for investigating that proposal, but it casts doubt on the genuine need for a practice ground and the concern for sufficient coach parking space.
The borough council recognises the need and concern for coach parking at the ground, and I shall deal with that matter later. Fairly recently, however, the football club was prepared to see that space go. The ground was regarded by the West Mercia police and the fire authorities as important for crowd control and to the way in which visitors to the Gay Meadow ground are dealt with. There is a slight dilemma in the opposition view, put forward by the football club.
The Bill has been examined in detail in the other place. I am sure that many hon. Members will have taken the opportunity to study the thorough evidence put forward, which caused amendments to be tabled to the Bill as further safeguards to the interests of the football club.
Hon. Members opposing the Bill's Second Reading say that the coach parking problem is of major importance. The Bill has already undergone scrutiny in Committee, and I hope that if it is given a Second Reading the Committee will consider it in detail. A Committee is the right place to hammer out the facts of the case.
Experts from the borough council and the club disagree about the figures. I am in no position to arbitrate between those gentlemen and their professional interests. I would not discredit hon. Members, but I do not believe that many hon. Members in the Chamber are able to arbitrate between the conflicting interests of the engineers. It should be possible to get to the bottom of that question in Committee.
It is important to consider the view of the West Mercia constabulary. Hon. Members who visited Shrewsbury, at the generous invitation of the football club, to inspect the practice ground and the effect of the changes in measurements on the arrangements for crowd control and coach parking were given a handwritten report by one of the directors present. It said that the police had visited the practice ground, where a coach was provided. Cones were not provided, although the area was marked out with tapes so that hon. Members could observe the manoeuvres of the coach in line with the council's proposal. It was suggested to hon. Members present that coach parking would be severely restricted.
A letter was sent to hon Members who expressed interest in the matter by Chief Superintendent Burford of the West Mercia constabulary, who is the senior officer responsible for the Shrewsbury division. He went to Shrewsbury market with the chief inspector responsible for matches, and Sergeant Austen. The borough council, in accordance with detailed measurements, set out a series of cones and arranged for a bus to carry out manoeuvres in line with those measurements. That showed, to the satisfaction of Chief Superintendent Burford — he confirmed it in a letter of 20 February—that 35 coaches could be parked in that area. Hon. Members may wonder whether 35 coaches would be sufficient.

Mr. Denis Howell: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that Chief Superintendent Burford was actually present when a coach was taken to


the coach park and wrote a letter confirming that in his view only 18 and not 35 coaches could be accommodated? Hon. Members have now received another letter from the same superintendent saying that on the basis of another exercise in a market area, and not at the relevant site, he has reached further conclusions. That is extraordinary when, following the experiment at the club, he was convinced that with the large turning area only 18 coaches could be accommodated. I apologise for interrupting so early in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but it is an important point.

Mr. Conway: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. He does not often get his facts wrong, but sadly on this occasion that is the case. The chief superintendent did not write a letter following the exercise at the Gay Meadow practice ground. That was a report written by one of the directors of the footbal club and photocopied and circulated on that day.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I have in my hand a letter dated 18 January 1984 to Mr. Williams of Shrewsbury Town football club signed by Chief Superintendent Burford. It states:
My estimation was in the order of eighteen coaches. This would be roughly half the number that it is usual to expect to park there at present.
Does the hon. Gentleman now accept that that letter was written following Mr. Burford's inspection?

Mr. Conway: I would not accuse the hon. Gentleman of misleading the House. If he has such a letter, I accept that. I have not seen the letter. The document that I saw distributed was handwritten by one of the directors. The letter that I have was circulated to opponents of the Bill as a matter of courtesy, but it seems that a similar courtesy has not been extended to me on this occasion.

Mr. John Golding: Will the hon. Gentleman give the date of the letter from which he quoted? The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) gave the date of the letter that he quoted as 18 January.

Mr. Conway: I believe that I mentioned the date in referring to the source. It was 20 February.

Mr. Golding: Ah!

Mr. Conway: We may argue about the mechanics of it. If nothing else, however, it proves that this matter needs to be sorted out in Committee so that the views of the police are fully known to hon. Members. In both the letter that I mentioned and the map attached, the latest communication from the West Mercia constabulary goes into considerable detail about the car parking facility. The second paragraph of the letter of 20 February states that is is possible to park 35 coaches in the area.
One of the highest gates achieved at Gay Meadow in recent times was 11,000 for the recent Ipswich match. That is considerably more than the average gate enjoyed by the club, yet only 13 coaches were on the practice area during that major match. In recognising the need for a large coach parking capacity there, one must bear in mind that in recent times it has not proved necessary to use it to the maximum. Indeed, as I have said, the club previously intended to do away with the coach parking area altogether. The police, however, wish it to be retained for coach parking so that they may better control the fans.
Much has been made of crowd safety, and it is right that hon. Members, especially the right hon. Member for

Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), with his vast experience of these matters, should be concerned about crowd safety at Gay Meadow. I should add that it has a better reputation than most clubs in this respect arid the directors are to be congratulated on their interest and the progressive view that they have taken. At present, police use the coaches as a wall to help control the fans. The proposal to build a bridge would, on the early stages of the incline from the Gay Meadow practice ground, fulfil exactly the same function. The police would thus not lose their facility for supervision and crowd control. The alternative bridge proposal, however, would allow fans to reach a higher position, from which articles might be thrown. The police were therefore not happy with the alternative suggested by the club and some of my hon. Friends.
It is important to bear in mind also that the police will retain power to close the access road to the car park. If the Bill becomes law, the police will have control over that. It is not subject to borough council influence, but entirely under the control of the West Mercia constabulary.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath will also bear in mind that the chief fire officer for Shropshire county council, Mr. R. H. Russell, has responsibility for implementation of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. In a letter dated 10 August 1983 to the chief executive of Shrewsbury borough council he confirms that he is responsible for issuing the certificate to the football club that he has examined the proposal, and that
after discussion with all interested parties, the Fire Service is satisfied that the project would not adversely affect any of the club's statutory responsibilities under the Act, particularly those which affect evacuation of the football ground.
The authorities responsible for the observance of crowd safety and crowd control measures passed by Parliament are therefore happy with the proposals in the Bill. If there were any doubt about that, a Committee of the House would be the right forum to examine any differences of view.
In my experience, the Bill is unusual in commanding such wide support in the town. I have not received one letter of objection from a constituent. Although the need for a car park is obvious, I should, nevertheless, have expected certain pressure groups to lobby against the proposal, because some people find new architecture less pleasing than old. However, even the Shrewsbury Civic Society recognises the problem and I have received no objections at all.
I cannot understand—perhaps it will be made clear today—why the directors of Shrewsbury Town football club oppose part III of the Bill, which deals with the ancient square in the centre of the town. I cannot see what is contentious about that. I look forward to hearing from any hon. Member who supports the club stance in that respect.
I remind the House of the statement in "Erskine May" relating to Bills of this nature. It states on page 979, in the Second Readings section:
the expediency of a private Bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee. Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the House will not consent to the second reading; but otherwise, the expediency of the measure is usually left for the consideration of the committee.
I have heard no objection to the principle that a car park is needed in Shrewsbury and that the proposed site is the


obvious choice. I look forward to hearing why any contested facts should not be examined in detail in Committee, as "Erskine May" recommends.
I am concerned about the future of Shrewsbury, and these days car parking must be linked with that. I hope that all who have a genuine interest in the town and borough of Shrewsbury will support the Bill today.

Mr. Alex Carlile: My constituency borders that of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). We are proud of our links with that ancient and beautiful town. Those links are social, commercial and cultural. One of the cultural links is a sporting link. In the professional leagues, at least, Shrewsbury Town football ground is our local football ground and the Gay Meadow is, as it were, our local place of football worship. We are very conscious of the happy reality of the great rise to prominence in the fortunes of Shrewsbury Town football club. In the past two or three years Shrewsbury Town football club has played a prominent part in British football life and entertained some of the leading football clubs at Gay Meadow. One result of achieving football prominence and success — we hope, expect and demand that Shrewsbury Town will eventually proceed to the first division—is the problem that football crowds always bring with them to towns.
I have a personal, private worry about the Bill from the Montgomeryshire point of view. Although I do not have the experience of dealing with sport from a Government's point of view that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has, and of having the closest possible links with studies about football violence and crowd behaviour, my worry is coloured by my experience and great pleasure over the years of watching football matches at many different football grounds all over England and, of course, Wales.
The Bill worries me purely on the ground of public safety. In Shrewsbury public safety may be affected when big crowds come to town to watch the major football attractions. I visited and examined the site of the ground, which is currently in conjunction with the coach park. They are cheek by jowl. From the point of view of the police and the public, the coach park is ideally sited because the coaches come down a small road which leads straight to the park. The coach park is within yards of the turnstiles and the visiting crowds can be shepherded straight in to the grounds without the slightest risk of crossing a road or becoming involved with the peaceful home fans. That is ideal for crowd control.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, whose views I respect in this matter and who presented the Bill in the best spirit, said that Shrewsbury Town has a better record on crowd behaviour than most football clubs. The reason for that is the large coach park, which can accommodate coaches coming in substantial numbers from, for example, Everton, Liverpool, Arsenal and Tottenham—

Mr. Denis Howell: And West Ham and Stoke City.

Mr. Carlile: Yes, and West Ham and Stoke City. That accommodation means there is no risk of trouble in the town.
As I suggested earlier, crowd control has been the subject of much study, not least by the Centre of Contemporary Studies in its interesting document, "Football as a Focus for Disorder". One of the most experienced gentlemen involved in that report was Mr. John Cornwell, chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities' arts and recreation committee. He is a member of the Football Trust, and an expert on these matters. In an article called "A Role for Local Government", he said:
New planning policies and housing developments should take account of the existence of football grounds, which in most cases are historically in the most crowded working class areas of town, equipped with few of the facilities which would be obligatory if the grounds were being designed from scratch.
If a company called, for example, Shrewsbury Town Football Club PLC went to the local planning authority and asked for permission to build a new football stadium, one of the first questions the authority would rightly ask would be, "Where is your coach park?" It would insist that the company had an adequate coach park adjoining the ground. Shrewsbury Town already has one at Gay Meadow, so the club fulfils the criterion referred to in the article.
The article continues:
Where railway lines run close by the stadium, local authorities should be prepared to join with others in designing and funding low cost basic platforms thereby reducing the crocodiles of hostile supporters winding their way through town or using public transport. Similarly proper car and coach parking facilities as joint ventures with the club should be planned for and developed.
Shrewsbury Town does not need to plan for and develop a coach park, as it already has one. There is no risk of crocodiles of hostile supporters because the existing provisions obviate that need.
I received a copy of the letter from Chief Superintnendent Burford to Mr. Williams of Shrewsbury Town football club dated 18 January 1984. It is important for the House to know that the letter refers to an actual test on the site with which we are concerned. I have only just seen a copy of his later letter of 20 February 1984, which deals with a theoretical test carried out on a different site. The letter of 18 January states:
I can confirm that I visited the car park at the Gay Meadow Football Ground on Thursday, 12th January 1984, together with other senior officers and officials of the Football Club.
I witnessed several manoeuvres of a coach which were carried out in order to estimate the number of coaches it would be possible to park on the car park in the area of the ground left free from the proposed road and bridge development. My estimation was in the order of eighteen coaches. This would be roughly half the number that it is usual to expect to park there at present.
That letter speaks for itself.
I have gleaned from a quick glance at the letter of 20 February that it relates to a theoretical test and does not take proper account of all the other requirements of the coach park—for example, the parking of police vehicles and the need for supervisory places. That test is most unconvincing compared with the real test.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any account was taken of television vehicles, which need to be parked in the ground for the big occasions and matches? I had a quick glance at that letter but saw no reference to their being taken into account.

Mr. Carlile: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I understand that no account was taken of television


vehicles. Anyone who has attended football matches where there are television vehicles knows that it is rather like party conferences. There are great caravans of TV vehicles all over the place, which can be as large as coaches and occupy a great deal of space.
We can go further than the letter of 18 January from the chief superintendent, and say that a highly reputable firm of consultant engineers has examined the problem and agreed with the chief superintendent that there would not be enough room for the necessary number of coaches.
As I said, I have been to a meeting at the football ground and I attended a meeting in the House about this problem. I am not convinced that there is no alternative route to the car park which might involve traffic coming from the west going over the English bridge and turning to its right. That would obviate the need for the bridge in the proposals put forward by the borough council. It would be wholly against the public interest for the population of Shrewsbury to be endangered unnecessarily by a possible overspill of football crowds into parts of the town which, under present arrangements, are protected. It is for those reasons that I take the view that I have expressed on the Bill.

Mr. Eric Cockeram: My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) told the House of the difficulties of car parking in his ancient city. As the Member for a neighbouring constituency, I can vouch for the accuracy of his statement. If anything, my hon. Friend understated the case. Shrewsbury is one of the most difficult towns that I know in which to park a car, because of the sharp U-bend of the river on which that historic town was constructed many centuries ago. The problem is made worse by the new traffic regulatory system, but we need not discuss that tonight.
The need for a car park is firmly established, and, as my hon. Friend said, it was supported by all parties on the town council and the county council, and is supported by the public. He told us that he had received no letters of objection to the proposal, which is remarkable, and I can tell the House that my constituents constantly complain about the lack of car parking facilities in Shrewsbury. They will also benefit from the proposal.
I have not had the benefit of receiving either of the two contentious letters from police officers. However, even if I had received them, I would not tonight set myself up as an arbiter between the two arguments. They should be sorted out in Committee, where witnesses can be cross-examined, which would be better than hon. Members making assertions that cannot be established by cross-examination.
What concerns me most is the cost of the operation. A little while ago it was estimated to be about £6·5 million, but we can be sure that, if costed today, it would be at least £7 million, and that, like most other public contracts, the final amount will be more than that. What shall we get for more than £7 million? The answer is 700 car parking spaces, a cost of £10,000 for each space. It must be one of the most expensive car parks outside the west end of London. The reason for that cost is not primarily the construction of the multi-storey car park, but the construction of a bridge across England's longest river at a picturesque point of the river Severn just below Shrewsbury.

Mr. Conway: So that the House is fully aware of the facts, may I say that in November 1983 the cost of the access road and the bridge across the Severn was estimated to be £1,337,000, and the cost of constructing the car park was estimated to be £2·8 million, which makes a total of £4·1 million. It is so expensive because of the difficulty of the architecture and screening involved. My hon. Friend is adding the cost of a gyratory scheme, which has been proposed by Shropshire county council in its TPP statement to the Government, which will go ahead regardless of whether the car park is constructed. I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but I repeat that the access road and the bridge will cost £4·1 million.

Mr. Cockeram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, which merely demonstrates that not only two different views of police officers are being disputed tonight, but the true cost of the project.
My hon. Friend's intervention also demonstrates the need for this matter to be examined much more carefully in Committee. Whatever the figures may be, it does not alter the fact that to acquire extra land and build an approach road more than a quarter of a mile long, and a bridge across the river Severn, is a very expensive addition to a car park, if it could be avoided. I share the view of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that it should be possible—I believe that it is possible—for access to the car parking site to be obtained from Wyle Cop. The council could negotiate for some property there, but I shall say no more about that this evening. If that could be done, the saving would be enormous.
It is all very well for hon. Members to say, "It is not my district council and I am not a ratepayer who must accept the burden." The House cannot dismiss its responsibilities in that way. We have a responsibility on behalf of the public to ensure that public money is not wasted. If, as I hope, the Bill goes to Committee, it will be conscious of the extra cost involved in the proposal to build a bridge.
I repeat that the proposal has wide local support. There is all-party support for it on the town and county councils. Among the traders and shoppers in Shrewsbury and in my constituency—I have received no letters objecting to the proposal — there is overwhelming agreement that the project should go ahead in principle. I support the Bill. There are some aspects which should be examined further before we give it final approval, but we should give the promoters an opportunity to make their case in Committee.

Mr. John Golding: I must be unique in the House, because although I represent Newcastle-under-Lyme I have received letters objecting to the Bill. I wonder whether it is because Conservative Members are known to be fully committed to the Bill that their constituents have decided that it is useless to make representations.

Mr. Conway: As the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, and because the Bill has the support of the borough and county councils, as a matter of principle I would have been happy to move it in the House; but I would not have spoken in favour of it had I not thought that it was necessary. Before I reached the decision to speak in favour of it, I met the directors of the football club and the promoters of the Bill. My decision to campaign


actively for the Bill was not to gain a high public profile, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) suggests. I made my decision close to the time of our debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the inference that my constituents have not written to me about it. They write to me about many matters on which my views are known, even if they may disagree with them.

Mr. Denis Howell: Whether or not anyone wrote to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram), who supported the Bill, the fact remains that 20,000 of their constituents signed a petition against the Bill. I hope that they will explain why 20,000 people living in Shropshire, Shrewsbury and Ludlow signed a petition on behalf of the football club. No one opposes the car park—I agree with what the hon. Members have said—but everyone opposes the lunatic proposal for gaining access to it.

Mr. Cockeram: May I reply to the point that has been raised? It is one thing for someone in a hurry on a Saturday afternoon to be asked to sign a petition and to do so, but if people do not feel strongly enough on the issue to contact their Member of Parliament for the town in question, or for a neighbouring town, then the Member of Parliament is entitled to say that nobody has contacted him. That is a statement that I make, and it is one that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) makes.

Mr. Golding: I have no doubt that no constituent has approached the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). My point is that those of the 22,000 who are constituents of the hon. Gentleman may think that it is not worth approaching their Member of Parliament. I do not subscribe to the view that, if a petition with 22,000 names exists, there is no opposition. If such a petition existed, no hon. Member could put his hand on his heart and say that there was no opposition to the Bill. That would be to treat with contempt those who go to the Shrewsbury and Atcham football club. It is tantamount to saying of those people that they will sign anything. In my view, they have indicated their opposition by the signing of the petition. It may well be, to soften the blow for Conservative Members, that after people have signed the petition they would say, "We have Members of Parliament who take notice of these petitions. Now we have signed the petition, there is no need to write to the Member of Parliament for Shrewsbury and Atcham." I receive post on many issues about which my constituents feel strongly. I do not believe that Conservative Members can adopt the posture that there is 100 per cent. support for the proposals in Shrewsbury and its adjoining constituencies.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Since we are discussing the critical point of support for, or opposition to, the scheme, I should like to quote a sentence from the Civic Society newsletter of this winter on the subject of the scheme:
The civic society council had several discussions on this issue and various points of view were put, but the society has never given support to the proposal.

Mr. Golding: The point made by the hon. Gentleman is doubtless that the Civic Society has been neutral after

discussion in which different points of view were expressed, some for and some against the proposal, presumably. The impression I gained from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham was that the support was solid. I shall be interested to hear whether it will be suggested later in the debate that, far from being divided and sitting on the fence, the Civic Society was 100 per cent. in favour of the proposal. If that suggestion is not made, I shall assume that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham may have exaggerated slightly in suggesting that there was great unity and solidarity of purpose on the part of the good citizens of Shrewsbury in reference to this project.

Mr. Denis Howell: I fear that I have been guilty of a little exaggeration, because I was unable to read the figures that were given to me. Two thousand, and not 22,000, members of the public signed the petition. I take this early opportunity to correct that mistake. This matter will have to be sorted out in Committee. A total of 2,000 stalwart constituents, most of whom vote for Conservative Members, must be listened to with great eagerness.

Mr. Golding: My right hon. Friend has been generous to the House in correcting immediately the figure he gave earlier. This shows that the Opposition, unlike the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, are prepared to acknowledge immediately when we have strayed from the facts.
A total of 2,000 is a large number for Shrewsbury. The House has been told of gates at the football matches of 11,000. Those are large gates, and the figure includes supporters and opponents, presumably. If one supposes that 8,000 are supporters and 3,000 are opponents, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) is talking about 25 per cent. of the attendance.
If hon. Members have ever tried to canvass football crowds going in and out of the football ground, they will know how difficult it is to get their attention. It must have been a magnificent effort on the part of those who opposed the Bill to persuade 2,000 supporters to wait and sign the sheet, particularly as supporters in Shrewsbury will be of a suspicious frame of mind anyway, if they are faced with people thrusting pieces of paper under their noses to sign. I thank my right hon. Friend for his correction, but I must say to him strongly that it influences the argument in no respect. It does not detract from the strength of the principle.
I am amazed at the proposals. I have studied all the papers. The Stoke City football club drew my attention to the proposals. In so doing, it was anxious to point out the importance of the proposals to the Shrewsbury football club in the league. When the matter was drawn to my attention, I did not have the clear picture that I now have of the enormity of the proposals. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having drawn a diagram setting out the proposals. I note that there is to be a long road by the football ground.

Mr. Denis Howell: Two hundred yards.

Mr. Golding: My right hon. Friend further amplifies by saying 200 yards—and I say in parenthesis to my right hon. Friend that I hope that that does not become 20 yards.

Mr. Howell: I understand my hon. Friend's scepticism, but I personally paced out the distance and 200 yards is a conservative estimate.

Mr. Golding: The pacing of the distance by my right hon. Friend leads me to believe that the road will be at least 100 yards long, and possibly longer. It is to go across the coach park.

Mr. Howell: The length of a football pitch is 110 yards and the road starts well before the pitch and stretches beyond it. It is easy to calculate that the road must, therefore, be more than 200 yards long.

Mr. Golding: I stand corrected, but according to my right hon. Friend's diagram it is not clear whether the ground is situated north to south or east to west. That is why I did not take it into account. I accept my right hon. Friend's correction that the road will be nearly 200 yards, at least, whoever paces it, and whether it is conservative or not.
The road goes across the coach park and obliterates it. What is the reason for wanting to be rid of the coach park? I have heard two arguments. One is that only 11 coaches use the coach park. What excuse is that? It is the same as saying that only 600 cars use the car park. Eleven coaches can carry 30 passengers each. My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath is the arithmetic expert. I did not do sums at school, but my right hon. Friend did. if one multiplies 32 passengers by 10 coaches—that makes the calculation easier for me—we are talking about parking for about 320 people, excluding the drivers.

Mr. Howell: I am sorry to keep interrupting my hon. Friend. I do not know that I am an expert in mathematics, but I do know that motor coaches these days can carry 50 people. The one about which we were told carries 54 passengers, so my hon. Friend's argument has even more force.

Mr. Golding: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. When the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham referred scornfully to 11 coaches, he implied that they were small coaches or even minibuses. [Interruption.] The hon. Member talked about 11 coaches in an intervention. With ten or eleven coaches each carrying 50 people, the coach park provides for as many people as are catered for by the car park on a Saturday. I visit Shrewsbury from time to time and it has a massive car parking problem on a Saturday. What is the solution? It seems that it is to get rid of an area which provides for more than 540 people in order to build, at great expense, a parking area for cars.
Has that been considered and faced? It seems that we are to get rid of one car park to build another, at enormous cost. The road will go over the English bridge, along the football ground—for 200 yards perhaps—and across the coach park. Then what? The English bridge and the Welsh bridge are to be joined by a wasted bridge. The English bridge and the Welsh bridge are worthy monuments. Will the wasted bridge be held in the same high esteem? What is the justification for building it? Should we build a new bridge over the river Severn to provide a car park for 600 cars, having destroyed a coach park in the meantime? That does not make sense.

Mr. Dickens: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way again. The Civic Society newsletter is equally worried about the bridge. It asks for assurances from the council that

there is no intention of commercial development to the north of the proposed bridge and that the bridge is to serve the car park and to serve no other purpose. Many of us believe that that bridge is intended to serve other purposes.

Mr. Golding: The hon. Member has the advantage of having been briefed. I am relying on the map produced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath.
I am not sure that I would be so bothered if what the hon. Member said were true. I am not sure what my attitude would be if he came to me and said, "We want to develop Shrewsbury commercially. We want to build factories to the north of the bridge and the bridge will provide commerce and industry."

Mr. Conway: I have no wish to prolong the interesting speech by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), although he is trying to goad me into doing that. He says that he is keen to be briefed. I know the hon. Gentleman to be a sincere and loyal man, which explains his presence tonight. He may wish to ask for a briefing from my Labour party opponent at the general election because he supported the Bill and the borough council's actions. The hon. Gentleman should seek briefs from Labour Members of that council who support the measure. I hope that in the interests of party loyalty he will not delay the proceedings for too much longer.

Mr. Golding: Is it an experienced hon. Member who tries to tie me to party loyalty on such an issue? Is the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham threatening me with the Labour candidate for his constituency? Am I to be intimidated in this way? We are discussing a private Bill. The hon. Gentleman should not threaten me. He is wrong. I do not understand how party considerations are involved. We must discuss the Bill on its merits.
Most hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, have been blinded by one consideration in their opposition to the Bill — the consideration of the football ground and club. My right hon. Friend is prejudiced in support of English football, Welsh football, Scottish football, any football. He is attacking the Bill only on those grounds. Are we not failing to speak of the virtues of Shrewsbury football and the implications of this legislation for the coach park, for spectators' safety and the rest of it?
I shall ask the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, who has spoken so strongly for this Bill, about more of its provisions. I hope that he has come prepared to answer at least one other legitimate objection —perhaps objection is too strong a word, so let me say., one other query — about the Bill. I do not see the river Severn as a river alongside which there is to be found a football ground. I confess that, until Stoke City football club wrote to me I did not know that there was a football ground at that point in Shrewsbury.
I have been to Shrewsbury for sporting purposes on several other occasions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, by the movements that he makes with his hand, shows what it is. He is imitating the casting of a fly. It is not a whiplash, but the casting of fly, the discharging of the spinner and, even in Shrewsbury, the use of the worm. The Severn is one of our great angling rivers and too little attention has been paid in the Bill to those provisions that relate to the water authority. I chastise my right hon. Friend for this. He is an all-round sportsman, but I have not heard him utter one word on the angling implications of this measure.
When I looked at the map and saw that, in addition to the English bridge, a new bridge was to be driven across the River Severn, I asked myself what would be the implications for angling on the Severn and for the run of salmon so important to those who fish on it. I suppose that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham knows the provisions that relate to the water authority. They do not fill me with confidence. There are requirements and conditions for those who are building the wasted, the costly, the unnecessary, the blighted bridge. If we look at page 24—I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are the only one who is following the proceedings carefully—one sees clause 14(3)(c), which provides:
During the construction of any authorised work the Council shall comply"—
here is the snag—
with any reasonable requirements of the water authority, or any person authorised by them, in relation to the prevention of pollution of the river or the avoidance of flooding".
How will that be implemented?
I declare an interest. I am a member of the council of the Anglers Co-operative Association, whose function it is to secure compensation in cases of pollution and also to campaign hard against pollution. How on earth will a bridge be built without causing disturbance to the waters, pollution and flooding? It is cloud-cuckoo-land to put into legislation:
the Council shall comply with any reasonable requirements of the water authority, or any person authorised by them, in relation to the prevention of pollution of the river or the avoidance of flooding.
What will happen is that the contractors will not pay any attention to the problems of pollution. They will not be concerned about whether they are creating flooding further down the river. There will be neglect of the interests of angling when the bridge is built.
Has any hon. Member seen a bridge being built? Knowing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as well as I do from the days when we worked hard together in the Department of Employment, it would not surprise me if you had built a bridge on your own. Please cast back your mind to the scenes when a bridge is being built. Can you see the McAlpines, with their big cigars, coming down in their Rolls-Royces and saying, "Chaps, while you are building this bridge be careful to cause no pollution."? I hardly like to mention the word Cementation in the House, but can any hon. Member imagine its chairman saying, "Fellows, keep the water clean. Let the sand run without let or hindrance," or, "I see some soil, some slippage into the water, that may cause flooding further on. Fellows, don't do it." To imagine that is to live in cloud-cuckoo-land. [Interruption.] Perhaps it is too far-fetched to suggest that the chairman would go. I accept that correction from the Conservaive Benches. I do not think that the chairman of either Cementation or McAlpines or any other company would leave London to visit Shrewsbury to see what was going on. They would be too busy counting the profits to be able to nip to Shrewsbury from London.
However, imagine the clerk of works talking to the navvies and saying, "The Severn water authority has written to us and told us that we must not cause any pollution or flooding." Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the response of the working people, working in hazardous conditions, working in the roughest conditions,

to any suggestion that they should pay particular regard to avoiding pollution and flooding? It simply will not happen.
One has only to turn to the next subsection in the Bill to see how absurd this legislation is. I see that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham is consulting one of his hon. Friends. I think that they must be discussing bridge building. I think that they are briefing each other. Although there was some scoffing when I revealed that I had not received a full briefing from the Shrewsbury Civic Society, I do not believe that Conservative Members have really thought out the implications in pages 24 and 25
Section 3(4), on page 25, starts:
The Council".
We have heard a bit about this council already. United, Conservative and Labour members wanted this bridge and this multi-storey. One can imagine the council in a town like Shrewsbury—a solemn body of important people in this ancient town. The subsection:
The Council shall remove any debris or other material which owing to the obstruction caused by any part of the authorised work has accumulated against any such part in such a way or to such an extent as to interfere with the free flow of water in the river or the passage of fish.
It is cloud-cuckoo-land.
If these workmen, under the supervision of the clerk of works, and the rest of them, drop material into the river and it piles up, the council will remove it if it impedes the free flow of fish. It could happen anyway. The debris will pile up, and the fish will have to face it. Is the hon. Gentleman telling me that the council will sit and observe the impediments that are faced by the fish, the salmon? Is that what the hon. Gentleman would have us believe? It is not on, and he knows it. The work will take place, the debris will be created and, like the pollution and flooding, it will impede the angler.

Mr. Warren Hawksley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the proposals put forward by the Severn Navigation Trust to make the Severn navigable? Presumably that would run parallel with this, and cause even more trouble than the danger of pollution from the bridge, would it not?

Mr. Golding: Mr. Deputy Speaker, had you heard the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), you would have been horrified. He has opened up a subject that brings pain to my heart. I know why he is doing it. He has introduced a scheme of such enormity that will distress the angling fraternity. So preoccupied am I becoming with the subject that he has raised that I see the Bill as nothing compared with that abhorrent suggestion. It is a good ploy. Your attention was distracted for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the hon. Gentleman tried — I repeat "tried"—to deflect my attack on the inadequacy of these proposals.
The answer is yes, I am opposed to alterations in our rivers. I want the salmon to run freely in the Severn. There are not many rivers — perhaps the Welsh Dee, and, further away, the Wye —that are so accessible to the working people of Staffordshire and Shropshire as the Severn.
I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are an expert on most things, but I am not sure that you realise that one of the great advantages of Shrewsbury is that its local authority provides much of the fishing. Because of that, salmon fishing in Shrewsbury is not the preserve of the


rich. Salmon fishing can be enjoyed in Shrewsbury at a reasonable price, as a result of the farsightedness of the Shrewsbury council. I pay tribute to it for doing that.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham will have to satisfy me that when this bridge is built over the river Severn, at such great cost, it will not make the angling any worse. However, he did not even mention it. The matter did not even cross his mind. For him, rivers are only for building bridges across. That is his attitude. Give him a piece of water and he will put cement across it.
The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth wants to speak shortly, and I think that he should. [Interruption.] I correct myself. I said that I thought he wanted to speak shortly. Apparently he wants to speak at length.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, in introducing the Bill, did not mention the angling interest. He came with a prepared brief. He came with it written out, and he has told us all he knows. It did not take him long to do that.

Mr. Rob Hayward: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is better to take a short time to say something worthwhile than a hell of a long time to say absolutely nothing?

Mr. Golding: The answer is yes. Of course I agree. However, I am not sure that either condition has been fulfilled this evening.
The hon. Gentleman has not introduced the Bill properly. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath will take him to task for that.

Mr. Denis Howell: I always do as my hon. Friend instructs, particularly on the subject of the angling interest on the Severn-Trent. As the Minister knows, I was responsible for water matters in the House for a long time. Indeed, no Minister in British history has had such success with water as I can claim for myself. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall address myself to that subject at the appropriate time.

Mr. Golding: Has the hon. Member for the Wrekin been briefed on section 8? I hope that he has. The hon. Gentleman cannot answer across the Floor because it would be out of order, but I hope to see some flicker of recognition on his face when I mention that section. I am beginning to suspect that he does not know what section 8 is about. I am beginning to believe that the hon. Gentleman came tonight with a stock brief from those proposing the legislation and that he has not done his homework.
Section 8 is about the temporary stoppage of highways. The Bill gives the council another power and this time it will use it. I cannot see it removing debris from the River Severn when it impedes the salmon, but I can see it creating the temporary stoppage of highways.
Section 8 says:
The Council during and for the purpose of the execution of the works may temporarily stop up, alter, divert or otherwise interfere with any highway or any private right of within the limits of deviation and may for any reasonable time"—
we shall have to ask the sponsors about the word "reasonable"—
divert the traffic therefrom and prevent all persons other than those bona fide"—
what does that mean? —
going to or from any land, house or building abutting on the highway or right of way from passing along and using the same.
I am told that "bona fide" means good faith. Does that mean that if the council asks an angler if he is of good faith and he says that he is, he can pass, whereas, if he says that he is not, he may not? The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) nods his head. Having given the advice, he sees in me a quick and willing pupil and signifies that I have learnt my lesson properly.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am convinced that the Bill will become an Act. As captain of the House of Commons football team, I have an interest to declare. The hon. Gentleman is trying to persuade us that he is on the side of the fish and is worried about piles of muck by the bridge foundations. All he is really interested in is the anglers and their interests, and those of the fish are in opposite directions.

Mr. Golding: That is such a fly on the water. and out of season, that I am sorely tempted. Of course I am on the side of the anglers. There are no anglers without fish, although there might be if the work is done and done badly. Anglers will be looking carefully at this legislation to see what damage it will do to angling.
I should declare another interest, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing it to my attention. I am a council member of the Atlantic Salmon Trust. That trust is specifically for the defence of the salmon; it does not represent angling interests. Although I admit that in speaking tonight I am speaking for anglers on the River Severn, I also have an interest to declare in the preservation of salmon.
The hon. Gentleman has diverted me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath is desperately anxious to speak at length on the subject and has asked me to shorten my remarks because of the need for him to lay out the argument on behalf of the football fraternity.
Although I speak for anglers, I welcome the captain of the House of Commons football team tonight. It is nice to see the hon. Member for Eltham in the warmth and comfort of the House of Commons and I hope that tonight he has the unusual experience of being on the winning side. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is not accustomed to that in his capacity as captain of the House of Commons football team.

Mr. Bottomley: Although we occasionally lose to the Press Gallery, we have not lost an international yet.

Mr. Golding: You are a stern chairman, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I know that if I were to give the House and the country the record of the House of Commons football team under the captaincy of the hon. Member for Eltham you would rule me out of order, not for tedious repetition or irrelevancy, but for bringing the House into disrepute. The hon. Member for Eltham has diverted me. He rose only to let the world know that the captain of the House of Commons football team is here and that it is he.
Section 8 makes it possible for the council to take away freedom of access, and that is important. Although it says that the council should provide reasonable access for foot passengers, it also says that they must be bona fide. 'Who will decide what that means? The captain of our team points to heaven. Am I being asked to approve a Bill that provides that the good council of Shrewsbury will look to heaven before deciding whether an angler on foot can have reasonable access or not? It is not reasonable.
Having studied the Bill, I suggest that there has been so much concentration on part III that not sufficient


attention has been paid to the earlier provisions. While I do not wish to delay the House, I must refer to clause 10. We have heard about conflicting police evidence, but I am not sure that I have followed the argument on that closely enough. I shall have to peruse Hansard to be sure that I have understood it.
If there has been a dispute involving the police, that must be set against the background of clause 10,subsection (2) of which reads:
The bridge shall be closed at such times and to such extent as the chief officer of police may determine on any day on which the football stadium situate at Gay Meadow in the borough is open for the holding of football matches or other events to which the public are admitted.
I hope that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham will explain what that means. I also hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath will deal with it.
If the bridge is shut because the police chief says that it must be shut, what good is the car park, and what access will there be to the car park? I was surprised when I read clause 10(2), but perhaps I shall be told that it does not mean what I am interpreting it to be.

Mr. Denis Howell: My hon. Friend raises an important point which those of us who visited the ground spent some time analysing. It is clear that the shoppers' car park will be used mainly on Saturday afternoon, but it is on Saturday afternoons that Shrewsbury Town plays its football matches. When there is an FA cup match—such as Shrewsbury played the other day against Ipswich—large numbers of coaches arrived, and presumably the police chief must then decide whether to give priority to shoppers' cars or to football coaches. We spent much time investigating that, without receiving a satisfactory answer.
The fact that provision is being made in the Bill to cover that situation means that Shrewsbury town council intends the police chief to take such action. Considering the high — I believe, astronomical — cost of the bridge, the people of Shrewsbury for at least 22 Saturday afternoons a year when matches are played—or if they are lucky with their cup ties, for 25 Saturday afternoons—will find that the shoppers' car park is engaged when shoppers want to use it, because to allow them to use it would conflict with the thousands of people wanting to visit Shrewsbury Town football club. I hope that that clarifies my hon. Friend's thinking on the subject.

Mr. Golding: I thank my right hon. Friend for his advice, although I was seeking clarification from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. In any event, my right hon. Friend is prejudiced in favour of football, whereas the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham has shown great objectivity tonight in revealing that he does not have the same prejudice in favour of Shrewsbury football club.

Mr. Howell: He is its vice-president.

Mr. Golding: It is possible to be the vice-president of any organisation and not have the prejudice that my right hon. Friend has for football. My right hon. Friend is a fanatical supporter of English, Scottish, and Welsh football clubs. Indeed, he is a fanatical supporter of all forms of recreation. He is prejudiced in favour of people enjoying themselves, and he would not deny that charge.

Mr. Howell: Guilty.

Mr. Golding: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham takes a more balanced view, is not such a fanatical supporter of football and is not so prejudiced. My right hon. Friend, on the other hand, is besotted with association football, although clause 10(2) does not relate only to association football, for it says:
The bridge shall be closed at such times and to such extent as the chief officer of police may determine
Which police chief is that, the one who agrees, or the one who disagrees?

Mr. Conway: It is the same man.

Mr. Golding: So be it. The provision continues:
on any day on which the football stadium situate at Gay Meadow in the borough is open for the holding of football matches or other events to which the public are admitted.
That is where my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath slipped up, because he failed to appreciate the significance of the second part of that subsection, where it refers to "other events". Were he not so besotted with football, he would have noticed that.
I digress to point out that my former colleague at the Department of Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker) is working short time and has left the Chair. We welcome in his place as Mr. Deputy Speaker the hon. Member for Woodspring (Mr. Dean).
Let us assume that the football club's ground is to be used for other purposes.

Mr. Denis Howell: We looked into that possibility, and it might help my hon. Friend to know that some of us thought that that part of the provision had something to do with the Shrewsbury flower show, which is one of the pretigious flower shows in the country. I understand that the facilities of Shrewsbury Town football club are sometimes used in association with that show. We all assumed, therefore, that the proviso was to assist with car parking and other matters when the flower show was on.
There may be other reasons for that proviso, but I understood the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) to say in an interruption that he had some reservations on that very point in relation to the real reasons for the bridge being built.

Mr. Golding: I have not regarded the knowledgeable interventions of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) as interruptions. They have been extremely helpful interventions. As I pointed out earlier, he has a substantial brief from the Civic Society and knows all the implications and ramifications of this proposal.
I am an admirer of the Shrewsbury flower show. Percy Thrower is probably the finest gardening exponent in this country.

Mr. Howell: Arguably.

Mr. Golding: I have always been more positive than to use such words as "arguably". When I was a kid, Percy Thrower was the main gardening exponent. My dad regarded him as the nation's foremost gardener. We cannot think of him without thinking of the Shrewsbury flower show.
I shall continue to oppose Sunday trading, despite the gasps and coughs from my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath. I am a staunch opponent of it.

Mr. Howell: So am I.

Mr. Golding: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is also.
What will happen to Shrewsbury Town football club, which is in financial straits, if there is a Sunday market? Such a market would be reprehensible, but popular. The chief police officer could say to the council, "I did not let you use the car park yesterday, and I shall not allow you to use it on Sunday for the Sunday market." Pressures will build up.
Antique markets, which cost me a fortune, exist all over the country. Americans come from miles around, even from Chester, to Shrewsbury, which is a natural antique centre. Shrewsbury, a medieval city, attracts tourists of the widest sort—not the Tottenham Hotspur supporters.

Mr. Dickens: As we are discussing the closure of the bridge during activities at the football ground, I shall read a letter of 27 January 1983 from the planning officer of the Shrewsbury Civic Society Trust Ltd., which states:
The Society is not fully convinced of the need for the bridge and/or notion of commercial development at the nurses home, where residential rehabilitation in association with the former RSI would be preferred. The Society would view with major concern action of short term expediency e.g. to attract private investment to assist the car park was taken to the long term detriment of the town centre.
The Civic Society is saying—the hon. Gentleman might confirm this—that the bridge is being considered with other developments. It would be stupid to close the bridge when the council might be intending to rake up finances, which I doubt, by linking the bridge with other properties. How does the town council justify closing major access routes to the people whom it wants to attract? The hon. Gentleman may agree with me.

Mr. Golding: That was an inspired intervention. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham ought to note those words carefully. He does not. I cannot keep a straight face. You were not here, Mr. Deputy Speaker. when he tried to convince us that the society was four square behind this proposal. We can read that in Hansard. Each time the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth reads the comments of the civic society, that argument disappears into dust.
I would have a different perspective if the Bill provided a bridge and facilities for industrial and commercial purposes. I am not sure whether I would support the proposals, but separate considerations would arise. I am not an environmentalist first and foremost. My reaction, when someone says, "We shall create employment, but the environment will suffer marginally," is to say that people should grab jobs. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth is not pushing me in the direction he desires when referring to the possible uses of the bridge.
The proposal to build the bridge just to provide a car park is astonishing. We are discovering, through interventions, that the car park will not be available to the public each time the chief police officer believes that a football match will create heavy traffic. Will that create an intolerable condition?

Mr. Hawksley: rose—

Mr. Golding: I shall finish this point. The number of interventions makes it difficult for me to make my contribution in the short time available.
The chief police officer will have the council on his back. He must decide whether the car park will be opened. If he decides that it will be shut on Saturday, problems will

arise because of the huge crowds pouring into Shrewsbury in coaches. The new bridge will be closed, making the car park inaccessible. I do not assume—the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth will correct me if am wrong—that there will be a free car park. It will be a nasty, paying car park. The chief officer of police will be asked whether he will deny the council the revenue from the car park on Saturday. Each time the chief police officer decides that the car park will be shut on Saturday people will moan at him, thinking of the level of rates and expenditure cuts. Political pressure of the worst sort will be put on that officer.

Mr. Hawksley: rose—

Mr. Golding: I shall give way before I continue with Sunday, Monday and Tuesday.

Mr. Hawksley: I suggest that instead of moving forward we should go back a day. I am worried about those who park their cars on Saturday evening and find on Sunday morning that the car park has been closed and that they cannot remove their cars from it. Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to the later days of the week, I hope that he will direct himself to the problem of Saturday evening parking over the long term. If I parked in Shrewsbury—I do so on many occasions—I would not want to find that I could not take my car from the car park on Sunday morning when I wanted to move on.

Mr. Golding: I am not a dirty stop-out myself so I would not be faced with that problem. I think that the hon. Gentleman is nitpicking. I was addressing myself to the central issues. The chief superintendent has decided on Saturday to deny the local authority a substantial revenue. It would be substantial if 600 cars popped in and out after the occupants had paid for one hour or two hours of parking. I do not know how much the charge would be, but perhaps we shall be told.

Mr. Dickens: I have no knowledge of the cost of the parking. However, will the hon. Gentleman concede that the same police chief who made an accurate test of the coach spaces then had to conduct a mock-up test with cones in the market place, as a result of which he produced a completely different story a few days later? This officer may well have to take the decision whether the road should be opened or not. This is a serious issue for the club and for shoppers and the scheme is an absurdity.

Mr. Golding: I am not basing my arguments on the assumption that we have a schizophrenic chief of police. I think that the hon. Gentleman is probably being unfair to the chief superintendent who delivered the two contrary opinions. I congratulate the chief of police on having the courage to send out one letter that said one thing and then to send out another letter that said exactly the opposite. I suppose that that had the result of making everyone content. He has performed a service for the House, because hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber can rise in support of one or other of the letters and claim that the chief of police is supporting their position. Instead of following the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth in chastising the officer, let us give praise and thanks. It is good to have the presence of a religious adviser in the shape of the captain of the House of Commons football team, the hon. Member for Eltham. Let us give praise and thanks to any chief of police who can keep both sides happy.
However, the decision having been taken for Saturdays, the same issues will have to be faced on Sundays. Imagine the consternation that there will be in the treasurer's department of Shrewsbury when the poor chief officer of police, having decided that the car park will be closed on Saturdays, announces that it will be closed on Sundays as well.
What will happen when that announcement is made? The ratepayers will say, "We have paid an enormous sum in rates for the building of the road, the bridge, the additional road and the car park, and now we are told that we cannot use these facilities." The reaction of the ratepayers stands out like a pikestaff. I think that they will react when the chief officer of police makes his declaration for Saturdays, but what will happen when he declares that the car park will be shut on Sundays as well? The ratepayers will have been presented with an enormous bill for the building of 200 yards of road, the obliteration of the football ground coach park, the building of the new bridge and the employing of council labour to remove the debris, to stop pollution and to prevent flooding. They will have to meet the bill for building the road and the multi-storey car park and then they will hear that the chief of police has decided that they will not be able to use the car park on the second day.
What will be the reaction of the ratepayers? They will go berserk. They will go crackers. I should not like to be in the boots of the Shrewsbury councillors when the decision is taken. They will be belted from pillar to post. The good citizens of Shrewsbury will say, "We have paid the bill and this is how we are treated." I hope that the police ball is not on the night when the chief officer of police announces his decision. One can imagine the scene. The poor chap will think that he is going out for a social evening, but he will find that he is grabbed by one ratepayer after another to ask him why he shut the car park for which they paid so much.
I do not know how much extra the citizens of Shrewsbury will have to pay in addition to their present rate bills. Why will they have to pay extra rates for the citizens of Ludlow, Telford and Newcastle-under-Lyme to participate in the Sunday market? I cannot imagine that the constituents of the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will go to the Sunday market. I have no doubt that they will prefer to attend chapel.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman could be misleading the House. Is he aware that there is a Sunday market in Church Stoke in my constituency, which is visited by many people from Shropshire, especially from Shrewsbury? One of the virtues of the Church Stoke Sunday market is that it has an immense car park that will accommodate many cars and coaches that come from Shropshire. Those vehicles can be parked alongside the market and the inhabitants of Church Stoke are not disturbed by the market shoppers, in contradistinction to what would happen if the Bill were allowed to be enacted in its present form.

Mr. Golding: I have heard that people from Shrewsbury and Shropshire generally go to that Sunday market. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman declare that people from Montgomery attend that market.

Mr. Carlile: That is true.

Mr. Golding: Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Welsh people of Montgomery visiting a Sunday market? I cannot do so. However, I can imagine people from Telford and Newcastle-under-Lyme travelling to Shrewsbury for the Sunday market.
The chief officer of police should bow to the pressure of the council and the ratepayers and say that the car park will be open despite the Sunday market.

Mr. Conway: I am conscious that during the course of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which has continued for one hour and 20 minutes, he has been attempting to persuade me to intervene so as to assist him in talking out the Bill. I managed to resist the temptation until this moment. The hon. Gentleman has maligned the character of the chief superintendent of Shrewsbury sufficiently now in his repeated references to the man bowing to political pressure. He is someone who is held in some esteem in my constituency by the directors of the football club, who are present, and by the members of borough council, who are also present.
I understand the object of the hon. Gentleman's exercise. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill I spoke for 18 minutes. The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) spoke for 12 minutes and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram) spoke for seven minutes. All three of us have a direct and personal interest in the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated his lack of care and concern for my constituents by taking one hour and 20 minutes of the debate. I understand his right to do so while despising his logic in doing so. I cannot continue to remain in my place and listen to him passing derogatory remarks about the chief superintendent in suggesting that he will bow to political pressure.
The clause to which the hon. Gentleman is directing his remarks was inserted by those in another place in Committee. The object of the clause is to give the officers on duty that day crowd control powers as far as that road is concerned. That does not necessarily mean closing it for 48 hours, on Sunday, during Church Stoke market, or right around the world. The car park might only be closed for an hour or one and a half hours before a match for the safety of the crowd, or for an hour afterwards when the crowd is leaving. There is no implication that it must be closed for any length of time.
That is the last intervention that the hon. Gentleman will goad me into making, unless he continues to attack the honour of public servants.

Mr. Golding: I did not attack the chief of police. I commended him for giving contrary advice which has satisfied hon. Members on both sides of the argument. Additionally, I have said that he would be subject to political pressure. Does the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham suggest that that is not so?
The idea of shutting a car park just for an hour is tantamount to an incitement to a breach of the peace. Visitors to Shrewsbury would have to be told there were certain hours when they could park their cars and certain hours when they could take them out of the park. What would happen if the match went into extra time? I do not know much about football, but it is ridiculous to suggest that this car park, built at such great cost, should have flexi opening hours.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath has said that we must get the Second Reading tonight. My


speech would have been shorter if the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham had intervened to say that the doubts that I have expressed have no basis in reality. However, the hon. Member has intervened only once, and did so in order to make bogus points.
The chief officer of police will be placed in a dilemma. He will have to take a political decision to close the car park or allow it to remain open. He will have to choose which interest to serve.

Mr. Conway: He will act in the interests of public safety.

Mr. Golding: Of course he will, but public safety will lead to the council. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman will tell me that Shrewsbury council always acts in an entirely responsible and unprejudiced fashion.

Mr. Conway: Hear, hear.

Mr. Golding: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything, and my next point will be wasted on him.
If there is to be conflict all the time about whether the football ground is used for purposes that create traffic and problems of traffic control, and the car park is affected, the council will always be disposed to refuse the football club permission to use its grounds for purposes other than the playing of football. If it gave such permission, it would lose income from the car park. Has a council ever given up income from a car park?

Mr. Bottomley: I shall not say anything about the hon. Gentleman's unwarranted attacks on my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), who sponsored the Bill. However, the income from the car park will be insignificant compared with the cost of the works. The council may be content to forgo the extra £60 or £100, if the citizens of Shrewsbury are to have extra activities in their football ground. The hon. Gentleman's point is a poor one.

Mr. Golding: If the Bill receives a Second Reading, we should test it and provide that Shrewsbury is a free town and that there will be no conflict of interest. The football team captain nods in agreement. He knows that councils are avaricious. I am tempted to speak about the Government's rate-capping proposals but I shall not. The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlisle) is trying to tempt me to do that. The one certain thing about councils is that they do not easily relinquish sources of revenue, however small.
The dilemma is that the people who will visit the football ground, whether for a flower show, an antique show, a dog show, a horse show or boxing will not necessarily be ratepayers. There will be the argument which is found in every seaside town about ratepayers providing services for visitors. I do not believe that the council will say that the revenue is so insignificant that it will not allow events to take place at the football ground. The football club will benefit from activities held at its ground and the council will get the revenue from the car park. If the hon. Member for Eltham can suggest a solution he should rise and give it. He remains seated because he is beginning to think the matter out.

Mr. Hayward: The simplest way in which to remove that conflict would be to remove the clause imposed in another place which provides that the police can close the

road. If we removed that provision the police would not have the conflict of interest that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.

Mr. Golding: That is a positive suggestion. The proposition that that is a positive statement and that it is ridiculous is not contradictory. It is a positive suggestion that is ridiculous.

Mr. Dickens: In regard to traffic control and whether the road should be closed on match days because of a conflict between football supporters and shoppers, has the hon. Gentleman addressed his mind to the fact that the police will also have to be active in Shrewsbury because if visiting football crowds are not able to park their coaches close to the turnstiles at the north stand so that they go straight in at the beginning and straight out safely to their coaches at the end of a match, they will have to park their coaches in other parts of the town? That will mean marauding football hooligans pouring through Shrewsbury whereas they would have been properly controlled by the club which is a model one. Has he considered the extra work that that would cause the same police who will have to decide whether the road to the car park is open and for how long? Those are important matters which no one has yet mentioned.

Mr. Golding: I am expecting my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath to deal with those points. He is an expert on football crowds and control and it would be wrong for me to del with those matters.
I understand that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth wishes to speak, and I do not wish to squeeze him out. Squeezing the hon. Gentleman is something that I do not wish to do. Nor do I wish to exclude my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath from the debate.
In conclusion, the Bill does not seem to have been properly thought out. I shall listen to my right hon. Friend's wind-up speech before deciding which way to vote tonight, and take his advice.
The speeches heard tonight, except mine, have not been sufficiently informed, and cannot be the basis of a sound decision. So I shall certainly follow my right hon. Friend into the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I shall set the scene by saying that hon. Members who have taken enough interest in the Bill to come to the Chamber this evening, have great respect for the town of Shrewsbury. It is one of the most charming towns in the United Kingdom, a medieval town standing on an island and surrounded by the river Severn. It is one of the nicest towns that I have ever visited.
Shrewsbury Town football club is one of the most respected. I have had strong connection with Huddersfield town football club and Oldham football club. I was speaking to directors of both clubs when they met a few weeks ago. Their teams regard playing Shrewsbury town as a very nice match. They enjoy going to Shrewsbury arid using its facilities, and enjoy and appreciate the friendliness and sportsmanship of the townspeople. The teams always get a hard match.
Football is our national sport, so the football club is important to Shrewsbury. When the team does well, so does industry in the town. Success motivates people. It has


been found all over the country that, when town teams win at their national sport, local people work harder, enjoy it more, and are much happier.
I do not wish to over-emphasise this point, but Shrewsbury town is regarded as having the best crowd control in the United Kingdom. It has been said by others that the club does not enjoy large gates, but it does enjoy large gates when it plays first division clubs in cup competitions. The club has achieved good results regularly in the past few years. I hope that it will move into the first division. If that happened, it would be commonplace for teams such as Manchester United and Liverpool to come to Shrewsbury regularly. I am sure that most of them would be beaten on the field at Gay Meadow.
Let us consider why Shrewsbury Town's crowd control is the envy of teams elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The coaches come across the old English bridge, swinging into the road serving the club ground, and passing to the far end of the ground.
I have taken the trouble to go there and see for myself the car park facilities, as well as the railway embankments and the training and turnstile facilities. I have done my homework and been responsible. The Bill has been pushed down from the other place after its Third reading for the House to deal with. I have taken a responsible attitude.
Crowd control at Shrewsbury is such that the coaches come to the far end of the ground where they are sensibly and intelligently stacked. Right at the end is the grandstand, which it is hoped some day to extend. The turnstiles are right beside the parking area.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the club would very much like to extend provision for spectators at that end of the ground but that the Bill would put those plans in jeopardy at the very time when the club has a chance of achieving first division status?

Mr. Dickens: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. Of course the club wishes to expand the facilities, and if it moves into the first division it will want to make the facilities still more comfortable for its supporters.
The main thrust of my comments on crowd control, however, relates to the existing standards. The turnstile entrances to the north stand open straight on to the training ground which becomes the coach park on match days. The coaches are neatly parked and the 50 or so supporters from each go straight into an orderly queue at the end of the ground and make their way into the ground in a sensible, segregated and orderly way.
The procedure after the match is even more important as away supporters often do stupid things when the result is not as they wished, which will often be the case at Shrewsbury. They will go home disappointed. Rather than having those supporters marauding through the town to other parking areas, it is far more sensible that they should come straight out of that end of the ground, into their coaches and away from the town. That is to the advantage of the town. No one denies that a beautiful town such as Shrewsbury must have car parking facilities. Those facilities are much needed and long overdue, but the price must be right.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Aston Villa is one of several clubs trying to build a coach

park immediately behind the goal, as is the case at Shrewbury? I understand that in the past week the Football Trust has approved a grant of £60,000 to create such a coach park so that supporters of visiting clubs can go straight from their coaches to the terraces and return straight to their coaches from the terraces afterwards. That will be of considerable benefit to residents who have been plagued with difficulties for many years. Aston Villa and the Football Trust are to be congratulated on that. I hope that the Minister will commend such schemes, in view of his proposals for football ground safety, which followed my own earlier proposals. Such schemes are essential, but the one area in which such a scheme already operates successfully will be put in jeopardy by the Bill. It makes no sense for the Football Trust, the Minister and the Opposition to urge such schemes on every other club in the country if such an arrangement is to be threatened at Shrewsbury.

Mr. Dickens: I was not aware of that development, but I was most interested to hear about it. It illustrates my earlier statement that the arrangements at Shrewsbury are the envy of the United Kingdom. It is not at all surprising that other clubs are modelling their crowd control arrangements on those at Shrewsbury. Long may that continue.
In seeking to preserve a beautiful town such as Shrewsbury it is no use solving the car parking problem if at the same time one is creating other problems. I am most uneasy about the arrangements proposed in the Bill.
I was not even enamoured when I read the report from the other place. Lord Aberdare's address to the Committee upon closing was like an address to a jury. He said:
My Lords, in the last 50 years there has only been one instance of a private Bill being rejected by this House on a Third Reading.
He was speaking about the other place. He continued:
That was the British Transport Docks (Felixstowe) Bill in 1975–76 session. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships will remember that Bill. Your Lordships will recall that there were wider political implications"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will paraphrase the address. It is not in order for him to quote directly as he is doing at present. I am sure that he can paraphrase it.

Mr. Dickens: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can do that easily. Lord Aberdare was, in effect, saying to the House of Lords Committee that it was not good form to reject a Bill, and that there were other safeguards. It would go to the House of Commons and the petitioners, whether Shrewsbury Town football club or the county council, would have an opportunity there. In other words, he told the Committee that it did not have to take the decision but could hand it down to the House of Commons where, it would be responsibly debated on the Floor. That is exactly what is happening.
I read that with great interest because it was like a direction to a jury. The Chairman thought that with an amendment on the table, there might be a chance that it would not succeed in the House of Lords, that he should remind their Lordships that it was 50 years since such a Bill was defeated, and that the right thing to do was to pass it to the House of Commons. There were grave doubts, even in the House of Lords, and I can see why.
In their brief, the promoters quoted from the Shropshire county structure plan and the draft Shrewsbury urban area


local plan. which set out the important role which Shrewsbury must play. They tested five strengths of the town: it is a county town, a sub-regional shopping centre, a commercial and administrative centre — which certainly it is — a valuable conservation area— which undoubtedly it is—and an important tourist attraction—which, of course, it is. I am one of the tourists who enjoy visiting it because it is such a lovely place.
It would be less than honest if I did not congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) on the way in which he presented the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He is a good, caring Member, and he presented the Bill on behalf of the local authority forthrightly. However, many matters may not be within even his knowledge, and they may be worth exploring.

Mr. Denis Howell: I do not detract from anything the hon. Gentleman said about the acumen and the loyal presentation of the Bill by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway). When we visited the football ground we all enjoyed his contribution. I have an instruction for the Committee that will consider the Bill, which is of cardinal importance. It shall be an instruction to the Committee considering the Bill that the overwhelming consideration in approving it will be the consideration of crowd safety. It spells that out.
From my experience as the Minister with responsibility for sport—I am sure that the present Minister shares them — I find it extremely odd that, when the hon. Gentleman moved the Bill and in the promoters' case, which went to four or five pages, not one word was said about the instruction on the Order Paper, on which the House must vote on Second Reading.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman's tributes to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham will encourage him to tell the House what view he and the promoters take about this vital instruction, which is in the interests of crowd safety and control, and which no hon. Member, in the light of the events of last weekend at football matches, especially in Birmingham, would wish to oppose. But we have had total silence on that matter for two and a half hours.

Mr. Dickens: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. I was amazed that there was no mention of the instruction not only in the Chamber but in the briefing material that was circulated to hon. Members by the promoters so that we could have both sides of the argument. Perhaps it was an oversight.

Mr. Bottomley: As crowd safety is clearly of paramount importance, and is much more important than the odd remarks that we heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) about salmon, and his assaults on them with worms and flies, is it not likely that the instruction will be acceptable to the promoters? Should we not concentrate on the two major aspects: first, that the council appears to need a car park of which the House has been convinced; and, secondly, whether it is necessary for the council's scheme to go ahead as proposed, or whether the council should give more serious consideration to finding another means of access to the car park rather than going round the football club and going to the expense of building another bridge across the river?
That is far more important, but it puts the House in a difficult position. Although these matters may be regarded as details, they underline the entire proposal. At some

stage the House will need guidance on whether this matter should be sorted out on Second Reading or Third Reading, or whether it should go to Committee. As I have not declared all my views on the matter, perhaps I would be a suitable person to sit on the Committee.

Mr. Dickens: I am obliged. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether I am obliged, but at least my hon. Friend got in a speech.
In my opinion, the borough council has completely disregarded the aspirations of the football club. When I visited the football ground I observed a sports hall which had been built on to the end of a school. It is probably very desirable for the school, but the hall was built in the face of this Bill, making a venturi action at the opening to the football ground, so that when spectators and cars leave the football ground and get towards the road that leads to the English bridge, they are restricted and brought more tightly together. There was a crush, because the building was plonked in the route of the proposed road. It is another absurdity.
The council says that it has considered the club's views, but it talked about bringing a road close to the club's facilities and said that it would have no impact. But if a yacht club or a golf club had a road next to its social buildings and offices, of course it would have an impact. At a meeting with the promoters of the Bill and other interested parties, I suggested building a road on stilts which could have been constructed by cutting away some of the railway bank and sweeping round above the training area, so that coaches could park underneath it and pedestrians could move freely underneath it. I was expecting the promoters of the Bill to go away and then come back and convince me that they had explored these possibilities. We were even suggesting other ways that the engineer—because the engineer, the chief executive and all the others were present—could explore to get into the car park that is so badly needed. There was discussion of the possible acquisition of some old property. This idea could have been put on the drawing board to show that the only possible way into such a car park would be by such a road and such a bridge. However, no such proposal has come forward. I saw no drawings, no schemes that had been ruled out, no engineer's drawings. A request was made for a sketch of the scheme with the road up on the viaduct, but it was never forthcoming. In the end, after long delay, a silly little sketch was produced.
I was waiting for the minutes of discussions with the railway authority, because I had suggested that parts should be carved off the bank. I suggested the possiblity of coming round the end of some very bad boggy land, but this might have involved piles, and would have been too expensive. It was, therefore, out of the question.
I would still have liked someone to produce a drawing. I am fair-minded. I fight for what I believe is right, but I fight fair, and am fighting for the town of Shrewsbury. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham does not know it yet, but I think one day he will thank hon.. Members for taking the trouble to attend the debate and show an interest in his town, because it is not possible to carry these things out on one's own. It is necessary to have the support of other hon. Members. Hon. Members may laugh, but this is no laughing matter. It is a serious business. This is a private Bill involving hundreds of thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money. Thousands of


pounds have already been sunk into promotion of the Bill. The Bill was ill-conceived, yet it has had to grind on, and it is still before the House for consideration.
I have discussed the matter with the football club directors many times to get information. They wish to talk to the council. The best thing that could happen is for the Bill to fail to receive its Second Reading. Then it would be possible to make much faster progress for the benefit of Shrewsbury.
When a road scheme is proposed in the United Kingdom, and a line is put on a map, usually dozens and sometimes hundreds of landowners have to be consulted, and public inquiries and consultation have to take place. In this case, however, there is one landlord. Why did the council not discuss the matter with the one landlord in depth, carry the discussions forward and even explore the system on stilts to which I have referred as a viaduct on pillars?
I am told by the football club that it is open to negotiation and is ready to explore all kinds of possibilities with the borough council. The club wants the car park. The football supporters live in the town, their wives shop there, the directors live all round the area, they use the town's facilities and they want car parking provision. Everyone wants car parking provision, and Shrewsbury badly needs it, but not at any price. If the Bill fails, as I think it will, then we can start talking. Let us not have this hobnailed boot approach when a carpet-slipper approach would be much better.

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with an important point. He will know that the Bill first came to the House 14 months ago, and has been subject to several all-party football club group meetings at which we have done our best to help. One of the great problems, as I have pointed out to the council, is that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the road should be moved back, in the interests of road safety, would involve trespass on railway land. That is why Shrewsbury council has not accepted the unanimous advice of the all-party football group. If the road is built into the railway siding it will be outside the limits of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham should withdraw the Bill and bring back a measure which would permit the limit to be extended. That would be sensible and everyone would be satisfied. Such a road and bridge would be ludicrous, but that is another matter. If the proposal is to go ahead the hon. Gentleman should take the Bill and re-introduce it next year when the demarcation line of the property is agreed by all concerned. I am astonished that 14 months after being advised by an all-party group in the House the council has not done that.

Mr. Dickens: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), but I disagree with him. A Bill is not needed. Too much money has already been spent. Why spend money when talking will do? The Bill should be finished off tonight and the talks could begin. That would lead to progress. So many matters must be discussed. Much money must be raised. Planning permission will have to be agreed for the conservation area. The structure will have to have wonderful elevations. It cannot be a concrete monstrosity. The bridge cannot be

of easy and straightforward design. It must have a citadel facade and a medieval character to match the English bridge. It is a big job.
If everyone started talking everyone would be on the same side and the House would not have to be bothered with such a Bill. A compulsory purchase order is involved, but the project could be a winning seller with the right approach.
I still wonder whether the bridge is required. An enormous amount of money is involved. We have heard many figures, ranging from £7 million. We have heard about the giratory road system that may go ahead in any case. However, we all agree that car parking space is desperately needed. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham on fighting hard for that, but I believe that he has been misled. He was right to promote the Bill on behalf of his constituency, but I do not want conflict in his town between the football supporters and the ratepayers who want to do their shopping.
Sometimes families will be involved. The husband will be going to football and the wife, poor dear, will have to do the shopping with the children. She will do the shopping while he goes to football, unless he helps her in the morning. What a fiasco when the road is closed and cars cannot move in and out during certain hours and people have to look up whether Shrewsbury is playing at home or away. People will say, "Oh dear. I forgot that they were at home today. If I had remembered I would have stayed at home."
We must remember the trade which shopkeepers will lose on home match days. So many factors must be considered. Investment is needed. That stands out a mile. Development schemes are needed to raise some of the money necessary. There are so many bridges to climb—[Interruption.] Sorry. It has been a long day and I have to listen to such nonsense in the Chamber, although I have enjoyed it.
We should dispatch the Bill tonight so that everyone can talk. That will lead to progress. Most hon. Members contributing to tonight's debate have gone to the trouble of going to the market place, the town centre and the football ground. They have bothered to take an interest. I got a letter from the Football Association because of my connections with Huddersfield Town football club [HON MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is no secret about that. It wrote to me just as some little engineer in the council office was writing to all the Labour Members of Parliament that are union sponsored, reminding them to come and oppose the Bill.

Mr. Denis Howell: The hon. Gentleman is right. One of the most extraordinary things that has ever happened to me in my 29 years in the House came when I suddenly got a letter from the general secretary of my trade union telling me that he had been written to by the borough engineer of Shrewsbury, urging him to press me to vote against the Bill. It is an astonishing performance for a borough engineer to write to the general secretary of a trade union urging him to use his powers, as I am a sponsored Member of Parliament for the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staffs, to ask me to vote against the Bill. The general secretary is a good personal friend and I told him that he had no business even contemplating sending me such a letter. If I catch your


eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall talk about this matter further, because it affects us as hon. Members, quite distinct from the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Dickens: The Football Association wrote to the club saying that there was a football club in terrible difficulty and if there were any hon. Members who would consider its case, it would be grateful. When I looked at the letter from Huddersfield Town football club with which I have connections, I did not blithely say, "Oh, it is a football club, I must dive in and support it against all the odds." I went down to Shrewsbury and explored the circumstances. There is no way that I would be supporting Shrewsbury Town football club — I do not mind the directors hearing this—if I did not think its case was solid and right. That is not my style. Having said that, the football club does have a strong case and has been treated very badly.

Mr. Bottomley: There are two points to be made. My hon. Friend should be careful about throwing around accusations in the House, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) should rephrase his remarks about the borough engineer, because expressing an interest in that way is as acceptable as through a football association. I feel strongly about this because of the way that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) cast aspersions on the House of Commons football team, although he must know how we suffer. Does not my hon. Friend agree that we should not take a view on Second Reading straight away but wait until we have heard the two Front Benches speak? They can put ideas and considerations to the House that will help most of us to make up our minds. My hon. Friend may have made up his mind, but there are some of us who are still listening to the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be helpful if I remind the House that this debate must end at 10 o'clock, and there are a number of right hon. and hon. Members who still wish to make contributions.

Mr. Dickens: I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
When I stood for Parliament for Middlesbrough I was described as a publicity-seeking Tory preservation crank, but we saved the historic buildings in Middlesbrough in the face of opposition, although it was almost a one-man show to do it. When I left, I was described as the man who lost his seat but saved Middlesbrough's heritage. I hope that my little contribution tonight will have helped to save the heritage of Shrewsbury from football hooliganism.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): As is customary on these occasions, it might be helpful if I intervene briefly at this point.
While the Government have no reason to comment on the proposals set out in the Bill, we appreciate the difficulties referred to by hon. Members. The Bill poses serious problems for Shrewsbury Town football club. The loss of its land is a matter that should be given proper consideration.
Like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) I am concerned about violence associated with football matches. The Government and the football authorities have been working together to combat this problem and I welcome and support the measures

which many clubs have taken to prevent outbreaks of violence. Segregating the supporters of opposing teams is an important ingredient of these precautions. Again, therefore, it is right that the impact of the Bill on the segregation measures employed by the football club—particularly with respect to coach parking— should be considered in detail.
The football club has, of course, petitioned against the Bill, and it will have a chance to present its objections to the Committee considering the Bill. It seems to the Government to be right for the detailed arguments to be resolved in Committee, when the club will have an opportunity to discuss the matter and present its objections set out in the petition. The House will decide whether to give a Second Reading to the Bill this evening. In giving a Second Reading to the Bill, as to any private Bill, the House would of course not necessarily be approving its provisions in principle. It would still be open to the Committee to disallow the controversial part of the Bill — and it is undoubtedly controversial. Undoubtedly, too, the Committee would have an opportunity to scrutinise it in some detail, as opposed to the rather superficial debate that we have had this evening.
Many important issues will have to be discussed in Committee if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading. If, having reached the controversial part and having heard all the evidence, the Committee came to the conclusion that it was right to disallow the controversial part, that would certainly have the Government's blessing.
Many important issues have been debated this evening. I have no wish to detain the House any further, and in my view it is right that the Committee should have a chance to consider the matter closely.

Mr. Denis Howell: We have listened with great interest to the Minister. Like the promoters of the Bill and the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), he has not said a word about the instruction that is to be voted on. I have tried to get the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham to tell us this evening what he or the promoters think about the instruction, which is solely concerned with football safety.
I find it incomprehensible that any hon. Member could vote against the instruction. Had the hon. Member got to his feet a long time ago and told us that the instruction was something he could recommend to the House on behalf of the promoters, we could have then given it serious consideration. However, he has not done that. We have spent two and three quarter hours and we have heard not a word about the instruction. The instruction has been on the Order Paper for many months. Indeed, I think it has been on the Order Paper since well before the general election, which makes it clear that some of us regard this as a matter of paramount importance.
If I had more time, I should have a lot to say about the cost of this proposal. Again, we have not heard a word about that, except from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Cockeram), who, although he intends to support the Bill, gave us the most cogent arguments showing why the bridge should not be built at such a cost. I think he said that it would be the most expensive car park in the United Kingdom, and he was right.
Even now, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham sits there, in spite of my pungent remarks, and tells us nothing. He does not tell us whether he wants


crowd safety to be a consideration in the instruction. I can only conclude that he and the promoters of the Bill disregard such considerations.

Mr. Conway: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: Certainly.

Mr. Conway: Although the right hon. Member is entitled to make the remarks that he has made, I am sure that his detailed reading of the Bill will remind him of clause 15, which gives the club the protection that the instruction seeks to achieve. However, he is well aware that the whole purpose of the instruction is to wreck the motion. He referred to the length of the debate and the points that had been raised. I remind him that his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) spoke for one and a half hours and left the Chamber immediately afterwards, displaying an utter disregard for the town of Shrewsbury.
The right hon. Gentleman has shown himself tonight to be a man of good principle. I mean that sincerely. Nevertheless, I remind him of the speech that he made on 24 January 1983. In a debate on the Epsom and Walton Downs Bill the hon. Gentleman said:
I wish now to deal with some of the difficulties that seem to have arisen. I share the general view that these difficulties can probably be explored at greater length in Committee. If, however, one studies the proceedings that have taken place in the other place, it will be seen that considerable progress has already been made. It would be wrong to suggest that hon. Members should start discussions and arguments de novo. We are doing no such thing. As the second Chamber to receive the Bill, we should acknowledge concessions that have already been made without in any way seeking to prevent the objectors, in this case, the Epsom Riders Protection Association, from pursuing their points."—[Official Report, 24 January 1983; Vol. 35, c. 724.]
I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment and I hope that as a man of principle he will stick by what he says and will help the Bill to reach its Committee stage.

Mr. Howell: I have rarely been so flattered by having a speech of mine so extensively quoted. When the Epsom and Walton Downs Bill returns to the House shortly, I shall make another speech along similar lines. There is a tremendous difference between this Bill and that one. The Epsom town council went to enormous lengths not only to protect the Epsom racecourse on which the Derby is run but to enter into meaningful negotiations with the riders and ramblers who objected to the Bill. It followed exactly the advice that we have given to the Shrewsbury borough council.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman has been tempted, but may we return to the Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Bill?

Mr. Howell: Tattenham corner is a good way to get to Shrewsbury, but I shall follow your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I support private Bills when I can and I have tried to facilitate this Bill, but I am sad that the sound advice that I gave to Epsom and which it accepted has not been accepted by the Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council. That is a considerable difference. Proceedings in Committee on the Epsom and Walton Downs Bill were conducted amicably and an attempt was made to reconcile the conflicting interests of the racehorses on the one side and the British Horse Society on the other.
Neither the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham nor anybody else has yet told the House what the cost of this ludicrous proposal will be. I described it as the most crackpot traffic scheme I have ever met in my public life, which goes back well over 30 years. As has been described, there will be more than 200 yards of road alongside Shrewsbury football club with a left turn across the car park, a bridge and another left turn to return another 200 yards into the car park. It is utterly absurd.
The hon. Members for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), for The Wrekin (Mr. Hawksley), for Shrewsbury and Atcham and myself attended a meeting with the council. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham knows that it is correct when I say that time and again we asked how much the bridge would cost. I do not object to the proposal on the basis of its cost, although it is ridiculous. That is a matter to be argued out between Shrewsbury town council and its ratepayers. We were told that the bridge was likely to cost £1·2 million at 1981 prices.
Having served in the Department of the Environment, I can say categorically that no builder in Britain can build this bridge over the river Severn for £1·2 million. It is an absurdity. The council could not tell us the cost or give us a breakdown of the figures, and we still do not know those facts because the necessary homework has not been done. The council has had all these months in which to convince us that the bridge could be built at a reasonable cost, but has failed to do so.
The multi-purpose car park, the council says, would cost £4·2 million, and a gyratory scheme £1·4 million, giving a total cost to be met by the ratepayers of Shropshire —Shropshire as well as Shrewsbury—of £6·8 million. Do Conservative Members consider that to be peanuts, for a car park of that size? No Secretary of State for Transport in Britain would agree to a 700-place car park costing almost £7 million, and that is before inflation. There has been much inflation since those figures were produced, so the whole thing is ridiculous.
There are alternatives which have not been considered. One involves a garage owned by Kennings—some of us went to see it and we gathered that Kennings was anxious to sell it—immediately adjacent to the car park site. In other words, not only is the proposed access to the car park ludicrous, but there is a much better access which could be provided by taking over the Kennings business and driving a road through there, giving a new arrangement at that point. None of us is against the idea of a car park. That is not a judgment for us. We accept that a car park is needed, but we do not want the crackpot means of access that has been proposed.

Mr. Golding: Does my right hon. Friend recall the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) mentioning that Kennings wanted to sell so that a much cheaper car park facility could be created?

Mr. Howell: I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, for whom I have great respect, and I do not think that he said any such thing, but I will read his remarks in Hansard.
There is no doubt that access to the car park could be available directly off the road. It would mean demolishing the Kennings facility and having either an underpass scheme, which was once considered seriously by the council, or a traffic flow scheme such as I support, with


a wider road which it would be possible to have at that point if the Kennings garage and service station was demolished.
This week this country has witnessed some of the worst football hooliganism and violence for a long time. We have seen it in association with the FA cup, particularly in the city that I represent. I am writing to Ministers to draw their attention to the position. I am not speaking only of what happened at Birmingham City last Saturday, when 100 people were arrested, not all on the ground but between the ground and the railway station. Fifty were arrested at West Bromwich Albion and there were 50 arrests at Wolverhampton Wanderers. All of those clubs are in the area of the west midlands police authority, that one police authority. We can imagine the effect of 200 people being arrested on the citizens, shopkeepers and neighbours near those football grounds.
That is why I say to the Shrewsbury town and to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham that when they produce a programme which will destroy the coach park—

Mr. Conway: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put. That the Question be now put: —

The House divided: Ayes 84, Noes 30.

Division No. 174]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ancram, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, William
Emery, Sir Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Bruinvels, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Budgen, Nick
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Burt, Alistair
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Butterfill, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Alastair


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gow, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cockeram, Eric
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Conway, Derek
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Simon
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Cope, John
Hirst, Michael


Couchman, James
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Critchley, Julian
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)





Howells, Geraint
Steen, Anthony


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stern, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Kilfedder, James A.
Stradling Thomas, J.


Knowles, Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Lang, Ian
Terlezki, Stefan


Lightbown, David
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Lord, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Macfarlane, Neil
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Major, John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Malone, Gerald
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Wall, Sir Patrick


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Waller, Gary


Murphy, Christopher
Ward, John


Neubert. Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Newton, Tony
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wheeler, John


Norris, Steven
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Penhaligon, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Pollock, Alexander
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)



Rhodes James, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. David Ashby and


Squire, Robin
Mr. Eric Forth.




NOES


Ashdown, Paddy
Lamond, James


Barron, Kevin
Leighton, Ronald


Best, Keith
Loyden, Edward


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
McNamara, Kevin


Campbell, Ian
McTaggart, Robert


Canavan, Dennis
McWilliam, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Marland, Paul


Craigen, J. M.
Monro, Sir Hector


Dickens, Geoffrey
Nellist, David


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Parry, Robert


Golding, John
Rogers, Allan


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Haynes, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Mr. Alex Carlile and


Kirkwood, Archibald
Mr. Warren Hawksley.

Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 32 (Majority for Closure).

It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday 1 March.

Orders of the Day — Wine Production

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—
[Mr. Garel Jones.]

Mr. John Golding: I was on my feet, and in that way I did the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) a service.

Mr. Anthony Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for your guidance on the hon. Gentleman's intervention. As I recollect, he was not on his feet. If he was, he has been on his feet for far too long today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Some people might say that about the hon. Gentleman. However, the fact is that he was on his feet and I have called him.

Mr. Golding: That was churlish of the hon. Member for South Hams. If I had not risen, and the Parliamentary Secretary had been called, the hon. Gentleman would have been made a twit. He would not have been able to continue his speech. Having spoken on the radio this morning and made much of what he was going to do, he would have been marked as absent tonight. It was only because I rose to my feet immediately—

Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an adjournment debate on English wine. Although one is always happy to hear the hon. Gentleman, he may feel that it is appropriate to allow me to finish my remarks, and to allow the hon. Lady to answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be better to allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed. We are all then anxious to hear the Minister.

Mr. Golding: I was on my feet to ask certain questions. The hon. Gentleman has been making a point about access by tourists to drink. I ask how he would define a bona fide tourist. That question must be asked. The hon. Gentleman would be creating a wine drinking den in the west country to which people could have access at any hour of the day or night. No Home Office Minister could permit that. The cider interests—which the hon. Gentleman is overlooking in his support of wine—and the beer interest would feel aggrieved if the hon. Gentleman created wine drinking dens at their expense.

Mr. Steen: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) an injustice. I had not realised that this was an intervention in the hon. Gentleman's speech. The hon. Gentleman has the Floor.

Mr. Steen: In view of your kind statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether the Clerk might put the clock back for two minutes — the length of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. However, I see that the Clerk is waving his head. If I am not as coherent as I was earlier this evening, the reason is that I have consumed with my colleagues a bottle of English wine—Carr Taylor, which is on the English wine list and is grown from English grapes around Hastings.
Rather than delay the House any further, I shall recap for the benefit of hon. Members who did not have the good fortune to hear the previous speech. English wine is made

from fresh grapes grown in England. British wine is made from syrup, most of which comes from the EEC and there is some dispute as to whether it comes from Argentina and Chile. The empire preference gives British wine a 42 per cent. duty advantage over English wine and it continues to give advantage to German, French, Italian and Greek wine. Moreover, EEC concentrate receives a subsidy which is not available to English wine producers. That blatant discrimination is aggravated by British wine labels which boast names such as Rougemont Castle and Carrow Prior which depict colourful scenes of Britain in an attempt to deceive the public into thinking that the wine comes from Britain when Britain is the one place where it does not come from. The voluntary code—

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise for intervening. My hon. Friend, who is continuing his speech and, with your approval, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is now apparently finishing, said that he would repeat all of the main points of his earlier speech. I know that this Adjournment debate is somewhat longer than usual. Is it in order for my hon. Friend to explain his arguments again as he has kindly given me permission to speak briefly—I hope that that has the approval of the House and of my hon. Friend the Minister. I should like to speak, but time is running out and, as my hon. Friend has conceded, he is merely repeating the points that he made before Seven o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It looks to me as though the hon. Gentleman will not now get the time that he hoped for. The debate will last for half an hour after resuming. If the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and the Minister have agreed that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) can speak, he can do so, but I appeal to them to be brief.

Mr. Steen: I cannot agree to my hon. Friend making a speech now. He intervened several times before seven o'clock and has now had the opportunity to make another point on a point of order. I shall agree to no more interventions from my hon. Friends or Opposition Members. I am glad to see that the only Opposition Member present—the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) —has a vineyard in his constituency. He has the Adgestone vineyard. There might be others.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I also have the Cranmore and Barton vineyards.

Mr. Steen: I was discussing the voluntary code stating the origin of wine. The voluntary code on British wine labels is misleading.
When the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) intervened, I was talking about British vineyards and the problem with tourists. We want to encourage tourists to visit our vineyards, but they are prevented from tasting wine outside licensing hours unless the vineyard has aplied for and received an on-licence. The licence involves the vineyard having a separate room or building for the purpose. If a tourist visits a vineyard and wants to taste its wine out of licensing hours, the vineyard must have an off licence which also requires a separate building or room for the purpose.
The snag occurs when foreign tourists visit a vineyard, wish to taste the wine, cannot do so because they are there outside licensing hours and must therefore buy a bottle from the off licence. Moreover, they cannot consume the


wine on the premises but must go to a neighbouring farmer for a corkscrew and glass to taste the wine. That makes a nonsense of the laws. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that.
I learned to my horror that the Food from Britain campaign, which was launched by my hon. Friend's Department, features British wine. Britain is the one place where that wine does not come from. My hon. Friend the Minister has been extremely kind to listen to all of the material which has been thrown at her for nearly two hours. I hope that when she makes her winding-up speech —if she gets the opportunity to do so—she will take a constructive and helpful attitude. The English wine industry is young and run by the type of people whom the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend's Department want to prosper. They are entrepreneurs and often young people who want to make a go of a crop which is full of problems in our climate. I hope that my hon. Friend will give them some encouragement and will not make them feel that the Ministry and the Government are not doing all that they can to assist this important industry develop.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food(Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I am delighted to reply to the debate on English vineyards and the problems facing the English wine industry. I have always admired the dedication shown by English wine growers in restarting a wine industry in this country. They have had to contend with the biggest problem of all—the climate. I am impressed by the quality of wine made under those conditions. It is a remarkable achievement when one considers that the industry has grown from nothing since the war.
The extent of viticulture in Roman and medieval times suggests that there is nothing wrong with the soil conditions in this country, although the climate then was probably warmer. The success of wine growing in other northern European regions, especially in Champagne and the Moselle, proves that good wine is not the exclusive preserve of the southern countries. It is often said that, as the vines get older, so the wine produced gets better. Therefore, I look forward to future vintages with great interest.
I am glad to note that the wine industry has just had two good vintages, in 1982 and 1983. They were of good quality, and plentiful. Last year's harvest was a record, and it will be interesting to see how the wine turns out. One has to expect some good and some bad years, as in any other agriculture industry, but such improvements in production reflect underlying advances in the knowledge and skill of the producers.
It is clear that the industry is here to stay, so we must assemble serious statistics on it. Wine is not specifically mentioned in the agriculture census, and information on vineyards is, therefore, aggregated with other crops in the published information.
My Ministry carried out a special survey of English wine in 1975, to establish the areas planted with particular wine varieties and the season of planting. That information is out of date now, but I know that the English Vineyards Association is interested in collecting some up-to-date statistics. The association circulated a questionnaire among its members about a year ago, but the response rate was rather disappointing.
More recently, the association has discussed that matter with my officials. This year, the suggestion was floated of a joint English Vineyards Association—MAFF exercise. I have yet to see the details and would need to he assured that the exercise would not simply create another form-filling exercise, but the idea merits examination and I shall be interested to see the proposals in due course.
A factor which we must bear in mind in any discussions on wine is that this is a product covered by the common agricultural policy, the wine regime of which contains very detailed rules on all aspects of production, marketing and labelling. Wine is a major CAP commodity and its importance will be emphasised still further when Spain and Portugal join the Community. The regime, of course, applies in the United Kingdom as well as in the main producer countries, although I am glad to say that English wine is exempt from some of its more onerous conditions. For example, English wine is not covered by the ban on new planting of vines for table wine which operates throughout the rest of the Community. That is a vital derogation, without which the industry could scarcely have developed at all.
We are also exempt from the requirement to supervise destruction of by-products, a quality-control measure which would lead to an unnecessary administrative burden in the United Kingdom. Finally, growers are not closely restricted as to the vine varieties that they should plant as it is still too soon to decide which are the most suitable for English viticultural conditions. In contrast with these areas in which some of the strictest conditions of the regime are waived, it is fair to acknowledge that we do not operate Community support measures such as distillation in this country. The Ministry has discussed this balance with the English Vineyards Association on various occasions, and the association has always insisted that nothing should be done to imperil the present status of English wine-growing, which it believes should remain experimental. We support that objective.
Having said all that, there is unfortunately a serious surplus of wine in the Community, caused by the growing gap between production and consumption. The main means of disposing of it—distillation—is not only costly but creates alcohol or brandy which may compete with our own alcohol and spirit drinks industries. I mention these matters which may appear to be remote from English wine because they are very much to the forefront of the current deliberations in Brussels. The European Commission has recently produced a large package of proposals to amend the wine regime and most of these are aimed directly or indirectly at making economies in the regime. Because of our budgetary and industrial concerns it is clear that the Government must give those proposals very serious consideration. Indeed, our general concern is that the Commission proposals, although a step in the right direction, do not go far enough to discourage overproduction in the future. Enlargement of the Community is likely to increase the surplus and therefore firm action is more than ever necessary.
Two of the Commission's proposals will directly affect English wine and it may be helpful if I explain our position on them. The first would raise the minimum natural alcoholic strength of wine in all regions of the Community. In some northern regions, including the United Kingdom, the increase would be 1 per cent. —from 5 to 6 per cent. — while elsewhere the increase would be 0·5 per cent. The Commission's main object here


is to improve wine quality—and discourage overproduction—by reducing the amount of "enrichment", a term to which I shall return in a moment, carried out in the Community. That is an objective which we would support for the Community in general and in the light of discussion with the English Vineyards Association we shall press for English wine to be treated no less favourably than that of the northern regions such as the Moselle.
The second part of the proposals concerns enrichment—increase of the alcoholic strength of wine where this is naturally low. At present growers in the north are permitted to use sugar for this, while those in the south have to use grape must. In a double proposal, the Commission would ban the use of sugar in the north and abolish the aid paid on grape must in the south. This would have effect from 1990 and would produce a substantial saving—about 115 million ecu or nearly £80 million, according to Commission estimates. The effect of that is that English wine growers would have to use rectified concentrated grape must — in effect a pure syrup of grape sugar—for enrichment. Although I believe that use of this product should have no adverse effect on the wine produced, I remain to be convinced that rectified must will be available in sufficient quantity and at reasonable prices. The Government will therefore be seeking assurances on those points before agreeing to the proposal.
Another area where EC developments may affect English wine is that of aid for promotion. The Council of Ministers agreed last year to set aside a small sum of money for wine promotion to try to offset the increase in the surplus. Although we must ensure that any action in this area does not adversely affect the position of our other drinks industries, the proposal from the English Vineyards Association seems sensible. It has asked that some funds be granted to reduce the cost to the grower of applying for the association's seal of quality. If that can be achieved, many smaller growers may be encouraged to apply for the seal, with beneficial effects for the entire industry.
That brings me to a point which is often raised—that of quality wine status for English wine. We are frequently asked why it is impossible to introduce a form of—dare I say it in French? —"Appellation Controlée", as is done in other producing countries. The answer is that quality status can be accorded only on the basis of lengthy testing of geographical areas, vine varieties and production methods. By definition, quality wines are those which meet stringent rules, and that implies a substantial restriction on the producer's freedom to experiment.
It is clear from discussions with the industry that, although quality wine status may be a desirable long-term objective, it is premature to talk about it now. But, having said that, I applaud the initiative of the English Vineyards Association in setting its seal of quality in 1978. This award is officially a certification trade mark and consists of a golden disc stuck to the bottle. It shows that the wine meets certain analytical criteria and that it has been passed by an expert tasting panel. This is a useful way in which to improve the consumer's confidence in the product he is buying.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) raised the question of the distinction between English wine and British wine. English wine is made here from grapes grown in English vineyards. British wine is

also manufactured here from grape must imported from other countries. That grape must is usually imported in concentrated form, when it is a syrupy liquid. It is easier to handle in that form, and there is an obvious saving in transport costs. I assure my hon. Friend that the main countries of origin are Cyprus, Spain, Italy, Greece and France, and my information is that it is many years since supplies were obtained from South America. I trust that he will accept that. The manufacturers have drawn up a code of practice covering production processes, as well as the labelling of the final product. The must is diluted back to the original strength and then fermented like any other wine, under closely controlled conditions.
I emphasise that English wine and British wine are perfectly respectable products. British wine has been in existence for at least 100 years. Some of the leading English wine growers, wishing to make use of their equipment in the off-season, even make British wine too. Thus, the products exist side by side, although they serve different segments of the market.

Mr. Steen: Why, then, does British wine have a 42 per cent. advantage in terms of duty over English wine?

Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend will know that I cannot talk about duty on wine. He must raise that matter with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. British wine is an inexpensive product at the bottom end of the price range, and it is dependent for its appeal largely on its price. English wine, by contrast, is a prestige commodity whose price places it, like single vineyard wines from any other country, well up the price range for wine. The clinetele for these two products are therefore entirely different.

Mr. Dykes: Further to that brilliant and highly acceptable analysis of the difference between the two, does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for our hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) to compare the two directly? They are different markets, and the aim should be a reduction in the duty on all wines, including imported wine.

Mrs. Fenner: I hope I have made the point that they are different.
I know that the question of excise duties is of interest to all sectors of the drinks industry. This is not just the usual pre-Budget speculation but stems from two important Community developments. The first is the judgment on wine and beer taxation, where the European Court found that our duties had tended to protect beer at the expense of wine, and we are therefore required to bring the duties on these products closer together.
The second development is a reasoned opinion from the European Commission calling on us to harmonise the duties on wine, British wine and cider. The Government have already announced that, before the next Budget, the European Court judgment will be taken into account. Both these developments imply some improvement in the relative position of wine compared to other drinks, but the House will know that I cannot be more specific on that now.

Mr. Steen: Will my hon. Friend deal with the labelling of British wine?

Mrs. Fenner: English wine needs merely to state "table wine", although producers use the phrase "English table wine". "British wine" is a phrase permitted under


Community and British law, provided that confusion with other wine is avoided. Our labelling law permits the use of a traditional term to describe a product, and British wine is such a term. Nevertheless, although the phrase is adequate under the law, the manufacturers have recently volunteered to add another phrase to their label, to which my hon. Friend referred. It now bears a phrase alongside British wine to show that the wine is made from imported raw materials. I welcome this voluntary initiative. It has avoided the need for any legislation. It should enable the products to co-exist in future.
My hon. Friend made much of some of the labels. I confess that I have not seen a label with a rolling countryside. Rougemont is a perfectly respectable label, showing Rougemont castle. That wine is made in the Exeter area by Whiteways at Whimple in Devon. Another one to which my hon. Friend referred is Belgrove. To my certain knowledge, Belgrove is a non-existent place and there can be no risk of confusion. As to Carrow Prior, that label states correctly that the product is made on the site of a medieval priory, and, as this is true, there can surely be no objection to it.
I am glad that my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate took the trouble to raise this interesting subject. I hope that I have explained that, although the industry is a small one, we take its problems seriously.
I am sorry that I have been unable to cover all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams in his extensive speech. I assure him that any points that I have not had time to answer will be covered by writing to him.

Mr. Golding: I compliment the Minister on her speech. She spoke with the eloquence that only one who has had an apprenticeship in politics in Newcastle-under-Lyme could have achieved. It was an excellent contribution. I wondered who she was protecting. Is the Minister there to protect the bogus wine syrup industry or the consumer? I do not drink wine of either character.
I am very disappointed that the Minister could not bring herself to refer to the problem of duty. I thought that a Minister of the Crown at the Dispatch Box could discuss every subject raised in debate. She did not cover this subject because she wanted to dodge the central issue—the fact that, if the Common Market has its way, the duty on beer will go up by 7p a pint and—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.